United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the court is the pro se September 20, 2019
motion of defendant Antonello Boldrini to withdraw his prior
“Motion to Discontinue” the case and to re-open
his case. (Doc. 12). Boldrini's Motion to Discontinue,
(Doc. 10), was previously construed by the court as a notice
of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
41(a)(1)(A)(I). Thus, on August 27, 2019, the court closed
Boldrini's case. (Doc. 11).
to the filing of Boldrini's Motion to Discontinue, (Doc.
10), Judge Saporito, who was assigned this case for pre-trial
matters, issued a Report on August 22, 2019. In his Report,
Judge Saporito properly found that Boldrini's pro
se “Notice of Removal to Federal Court”,
(Doc. 1), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1455, regarded
two summary traffic citations issued to Boldrini by the
Pennsylvania State Police for exceeding the speed limit,
should be remanded to state court. (Doc. 9).
had been found guilty of both traffic citations by state
magisterial district judges, and he had a state court appeal
pending in one of the cases. Boldrini's state court time
to appeal his second conviction had not lapsed at the time
Judge Saporito issued his Report.
Report, Judge Saporito discussed the grounds for removing a
criminal prosecution to federal court provided for in 28
U.S.C. §§1442, 1442a, and 1443. He then found that
Boldrini did not satisfy any of the substantive criteria for
removal of a criminal prosecution. Since the court concurs
with Judge Saporito's analysis, it does not repeat it
herein. (Doc. 9 at 6-8). Thus, based on the Report, it was
immanently clear that Boldrini's Notice of Removal of his
traffic cases should be remanded to state court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1455(b)(4). See Pennsylvania v.
Brown-Bey, 637 Fed.Appx. 686 (3d Cir. 2016).
August 23, 2019, in response to Judge Saporito's Report,
Boldrini filed his “Motion to Discontinue” his
case stating that one of the traffic citations was terminated
on August 14, 2019 and paid, and that other citation was on
appeal. (Doc. 10). Thus, the court dismissed Boldrini's
case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(I), and the case
was closed. (Doc. 11).
instant motion, Boldrini seeks to withdraw his “Motion
to Discontinue” and re-open his case claiming that he
was a “victim of the abuse of power of [Judge Saporito]
and [his] partner [Judge Mannion]”, and that his
decision to discontinue was “made under duress due to
the threat of [Judge] Saporito to consider [his] case a
criminal case” and to “harass” him.
Boldrini further states that he accuses “Saporito &
Mannion” “under the RICO.”
same day Boldrini filed his motion to re-open his case, he
also filed a Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit seeking an
order to set aside all of the Orders Judge Saporito issued in
his case as well as this court's Order dismissing his
case. (Doc. 13). Boldrini also seeks the Third Circuit to
re-open his case and assign different judges to preside over
it since he alleges that Judge Saporito and the undersigned
“conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering,
obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of
Braun v. Gonzales, 2013 WL 1405946, *1 (D.Del.
2013), the court explained:
“Rule 41 has a set of procedures in place whereby a
plaintiff may proceed with caution in refiling the complaint,
as a way to discourage plaintiffs from repeatedly filing and
voluntarily dismissing complaints in federal court.”
Thomas v. Ramapo Coll. of New Jersey, 2011 WL
3206448, at *2 (D.N.J. July 27, 2011). When the Court granted
Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, it
removed the case from the Court's docket. See Penn
West Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 371 F.3d 118, 132 (3d
Cir. 2004). Plaintiff may not restore the case to the docket
simply by moving to reopen. Rather, Plaintiff must refile the
complaint, assuming her claims are not time-barred.
Boldrini alleges that he filed his request to dismiss his
case under duress and threat by Judge Saporito, he offers no
support to substantiate his baseless allegations. Rather,
Boldrini only relies upon the Orders and the Report Judge
Saporito issued in his case to support his allegations and he
claims that the threat of the Judge was to consider his case
a criminal case. However, as discussed above, Judge
Saporito's Report recommending the remand of
Boldrini's case to state court was well-reasoned, based
on the law and was correctly determined. See Pennsylvania
v. Brown-Bey, supra.
Boldrini's “Motion to Withdraw Discontinue”
and re-open his case will be DENIED.
Boldrini's case will remain dismissed pursuant to the
court's August 27, 2019 Order. (Doc. 11). An appropriate
order will be entered.