Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richard Roche v. State of N.J. Legislature

April 25, 2011

RICHARD ROCHE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF N.J. LEGISLATURE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court upon the Court of Appeals' order staying appellate proceedings in this matter on the basis of a certain filing made by the petitioner. See Docket Entry No. 17.

For the reasons detailed below, this Court: (a) will presume that the Court of Appeals' order staying the appellate proceedings was entered in connection with the petitioner's filing of the submission titled "Motion for Order Issue to Show Cause," which this Court considers in conjunction with the submission titled "Notice of Error," see Docket Entries Nos. 9 and 11; (b) will construe these submissions individually, and taken together, as a motion for reconsideration filed in accordance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e); (c) deny such motion for reconsideration; and (d) expressly withdraw its jurisdiction over this matter rendering it ripe for appeal.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Background

A. Roche-2241 Proceedings

1. Proceedings at the District Level

a. Initial Submission and Judgment

b. Post-Judgment Submissions

2. Proceedings at the Appellate Level

B. Instant Proceedings

1. Proceedings at the District Level

a. Initial Submission and Judgment

b. Post-Judgment Submissions

2. Proceedings at the Appellate Level

II. DISCUSSION

A. Alternative Constructions Implicated by the Stay Order

B. Alternative Submissions Implicated by the Stay Order

1. "Notice of Rejection and Correction" Cannot Be Construed as Motion Referred-to in the Stay Order

2. Remaining Submissions Taken Together or Individually as Motion for Reconsideration

III. CONCLUSION

I. BACKGROUND

The instant matter was commenced upon the Clerk's receipt of a petition submitted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on behalf of three individuals, Richard Roche ("Richard"), Felix Roche ("Felix") and Abdiel Fermin Avila ("Avila"). See Docket Entry No. 1. Although there was a multitude of actions initiated in this District by Richard and a substantial number of actions commenced by Avila, for present purposes it will suffice to detail the procedural and substantive history of only two actions, namely, the instant matter and its companion case, Roche at el. v. United States, Civil Action No. 10-4237 (DRD) ("Roche-2241").

A. Roche-2241 Proceedings

1. Proceedings at the District Level

a. Initial Submission and Judgment

The proceedings in Roche-2241 were initiated on August 17, 2010, upon the Clerk's receipt of a petition, submitted pursuant to 28 U.S. § 2241, on behalf of Richard, Felix and Avila.

Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ("Judge Debevoise"), presiding over the Roche-2241 action, explained the shortcomings of the petition before him as follows:

1. The Petition names, as Petitioners in this action, three individuals, namely Richard . . . , . . . Avila and Felix . . . .

2. Since the Petition aims to challenge three different [citizenship determinations], the Petition violates Habeas Rule 2(e), which requires filing of a new and separate petition with regard to each separate determination. In other words, Richard . . . , . . . Avila and Felix . . . cannot file a joint petition challenging their [citizenship status]; rather, they must bring ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.