United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
KAMAL K. ROY, Plaintiff,
U.S. GOVERNMENT AT WHITE HOUSE, DC, et al., Defendants.
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
3, 2017 Plaintiff Kamal K. Roy (“Plaintiff”),
proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against former President Barack H. Obama;
numerous state and federal governmental entities, several of
which do not appear to exist; and two individuals identified
only by last name. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice and without granting leave to
amend. Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief from the
Court's order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny
complaint consists of unintelligible handwritten notes on a
form complaint for a civil action, followed by over a hundred
pages of exhibits containing additional handwritten notes on
assorted documents. See ECF No. 1. While Plaintiff's
complaint is unclear, it appears Plaintiff may be attempting
to assert claims based on the alleged violation of his
filed this action on June 22, 2015,  together with an application
to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. The Court granted
Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on June 29, 2015, but in
the same order, dismissed Plaintiff's complaint on the
basis that it is “rambling and incomprehensible, and
fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a).” ECF No 2. The order stated that the complaint
was dismissed “without prejudice, ” but then
stated that Plaintiff “is not given leave to amend
because the Court finds that amendment would be
filed a notice of appeal from the Court's order on August
6, 2015. ECF No. 4. On October 2, 2015, the Third Circuit
dismissed his appeal for failure to timely prosecute insofar
as Plaintiff failed to file a brief and appendix as directed.
ECF No. 6.
October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, which
he states is a “motion under rule FRCP 60B for new
trial” and “request change to order.”
Pl.'s Rule 60(b) Mot., ECF No. 7. While Plaintiff's
motion, like his complaint, is handwritten and unclear, he
appears to argue that (1) the order is defective because it
does not list all of the names of the parties, so it could
not be served on the defendants; and (2) the order violates
his constitutional rights. Id. at 1. Plaintiff has
attached several documents to his motion, including (1) the
Court's June 29, 2015, order; (2) a letter he sent to the
Federal Election Commission asking to be registered as a
candidate for U.S. President; (3) a statement of the nursing
services provided by his managed long term care program; and
(4) correspondence regarding taxes for an entity called
Handicap Interests International. See Id. at 2-10.
The remainder of Plaintiff's motion consists of
unintelligible handwritten pages. Id.
defendants in this action were not served with the Complaint,
and, accordingly, have not filed a response to
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides six grounds for relief
from an order or judgment:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct ...