The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's filing of a submission docketed in this action as Docket Entry No. 76, and it appearing that:
1. Plaintiff's litigations in this District and before the Court of Appeals, the events that gave rise to those proceedings, as well as pertinent information with regard to criminal proceedings against a certain Catrina R. Gatling ("Gatling"), Plaintiff's former girlfriend to whom Plaintiff puzzlingly refers to as an "associated plaintiff" or "associated aggrieved," have been already detailed by this Court in its opinion ("June Opinion") docketed in this matter as Docket Entry No. 73, and were elaborated, in even greater detail, in the opinion ("Telfair-GEB Opinion") issued in Telfair et al. v. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civ. Action No. 10-2958 (GEB) (D.N.J.), and docketed in that matter as docket entry no. 7. Granted the magnitude of the information provided in Telfair-GEB Opinion and this Court's June Opinion, another repeat of the same appears unwarranted, and it shall suffice to state only that, while litigating just a five of matters in this District, Plaintiff deposited thousands of pages on the dockets of these proceedings, filling these pages with nearly incomprehensible lingo, creating documents unduly striving to pass as official forms, and systemically repeating and re-repeating the very same voluminous filings. See generally, June Opinion and Telfair-GEB Opinion (discussing Plaintiff's litigation practices).
2. For the purposes of the case at bar, this Court's order ("June Order"), issued in conjunction with this Court's June Opinion: (a) continued stay of Plaintiff's claims that had been stayed previously; (b) dismissed some of the then-outstanding claims with prejudice; and (c) noted two lines of claims that were subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Docket Entry No. 74. This Court, therefore, directed Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint with regard to the claims dismissed without prejudice. The June Opinion and June Order provided Plaintiff with a detail guidance as to the format of the amended complaint to be filed; in addition, the Court explained to Plaintiff the governing pleading standard and pertinent substantive tests. See generally, July Opinion.
3. This Court also took notice of the limited order of preclusion entered against Plaintiff in Telfair et al. v. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civ. Action No. 10-2958 (GEB) (D.N.J.), and docketed in both Telfair et al. v. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civ. Action No. 10-2958 (GEB) (D.N.J.), and the instant matter.*fn1 Since -- being served with a copy of Telfair-GEB Opinion -- Plaintiff was already notified of the precise terms of that limited preclusion order, this Court: (a) adopted that limited order of preclusion as the law of this case for the period of ninety days; and (b) pursuant to the holding of Hoffenberg v. Bumb, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11741, at *14 (3d Cir. June 9, 2011), directed Plaintiff to show cause as to why the terms of this limited order of preclusion should be lifted or altered. See Hoffenberg, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11741, at *14 (stating that "[t]he District Court here gave notice to [an abusive pro se litigant] that his failure to [file documents complying with procedural requirements] would result in 'sanctions.' But the District Court did not afford notice of the particular order that it intended to enter placing restrictions upon [the litigant's] right to file [future submissions]. As a result, [the litigant] did not have an opportunity to object [to the particular sanctions imposed] before the [preclusion] order was entered") (emphasis added). Moreover, this Court's June Opinion and June Order provided Plaintiff with detailed instructions as to the format and content of Plaintiff's written statement to be filed in response to the Court's order to show cause. See Docket Entries Nos. 73 and 74 (addressing the already-docketed Plaintiff's challenges to the preclusion order and specifying, inter alia, that Plaintiff's written statement shall not exceed ten pages, single-sided, double-spaced, that Plaintiff's objections shall be stated separately, clearly identifying which objections relate to the instant matter and which relate to Plaintiff's future civil actions, that Plaintiff shall not reiterate his objections based on Clerk's holiday schedule, Clerk's hours, incremental weather, Plaintiff's speculations about potential failures of this District's electronic filing system, and that Plaintiff's generic statements that he might lose the "momentum" of his actions or references to Gatling or to Gatling's child/children, or to Gatling's ability to commence suit shall be excluded from Plaintiff's written statement). The Court's June Opinion and June Order were issued and entered on June 23, 2011, hence giving Plaintiff until July 22 to file his amended complaint and his written statement in response to the Court's order to show cause.
4. On June 30, 2011, the Clerk received Plaintiff's submission at bar.*fn2 See Docket Entry No. 76. This submission includes:
a. A six-page document titled "NOTICE FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE IN WHICH TO FILE RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS," reading, verbatim (and with footnotes replicated below), as follows:
To All Parties: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff hereby, moves before the US. District Court for leave, for an Extension of Time and/or Continuance inter alia pursuant to (Fed, R. Civ. P. 6(b) (1)). the undersign "move for leave" before the US. District Court(s) for the third circuit, requesting the Court to exercise its supervisory powers, to accept this particular pleading(s) in equity; in support of the Plaintiff Tommie H. Telfair, (Inter Alia) as a necessary corollary to assert Plaintiff's procedural and constitutional safeguard(s), and as a legally cognizable right resulting from manifest deprivation of right sustained during adjacent legal matter(s) requiring deviation from normal practices and procedures in the furtherance of justice. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that [t]his foregoing moving matter(s) is in conjunction to "any additiona1 protest(s)" previously, or presently before the U.S. District Court(s) and/or U.S. Appellate Court(s), implying no adverse affects to any other enumerating moving matter(s), where this is the Plaintiff's implementation of diligence, with an aided attempt to maintain a record for the protection of the Plaintiff's constitutional and procedural rights, for verification, judicial review, or judicial enforcement. Relief Sought. I, Tommie H. Telfair, the undersigned hereby seeks an extension and/or continuance of 120 days, or until procedurally feasible, within which to litigate or otherwise respond to the foregoing matter(s). During this extension, Plaintiff wishes to reserve all of its rights, including the right to move to for Appellate Review, change of venue, and/or to object to the jurisdiction of the court. Grounds for Relief. The extension is needed to permit the Plaintiff time to complete its investigative research and litigation during parallel legal matter(s), or the accumulation of information needed to safeguard the Plaintiff's rights during [t]hese moving matter(s), based on the fact(s) that the Plaintiff lacks the legal training and is learning the law during the process of each stage in the hereafter litigation, and that the Plaintiff's legal process have been extremely scrutinized or sanctioned*fn3 without being given the option to make corrections where needed, disregarding the prevailing facts that litigation from pro se individuals is to be construed liberally.*fn4 The Plaintiff's request is supported by the declaration, and that the relief sought-after is a matter of extreme unique-necessity; no previous extension has been granted or applied for in this matter. Supporting Papers. This motion is made on these documents, and on the Supporting declaration establishing the facts set out in this document(s), and on all of the pleadings and papers already on file in this and other adjacent legal matter(s). See Attachments herewith. Dated: 6/28/2011 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Tommie H. Telfair Suj Juris In Propria Persona. Extension of Time and/or Continuance is so Ordered. IT IS ORDERED that Tommie H. Telfair herein Plaintiff is granted an additional [number, e.g., 120] days, up to and including [date of extension and/or continuance*fn5 ], within which to answer ultimate penalty of dismissal (inter alia). Considerations of fair play may dictate that courts steer clear of harshest sanctions where failure to comply is due to mere oversight and/or form, especially that of a Pro-Se litigant, amounting to no more than simple inadvertencies. See> Fundamental Fairness Doctrine and the violations thereof
or otherwise litigate in this matter(s). During this period, all of the rights of the Plaintiff's are reserved, including all above-mentioned rights, and the right to litigate by filing a motion to Reopen, including motions to litigate regarding the grounds that this court lacks jurisdiction. Dated: 6/28/2011. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Tommie H. Telfair Sui Juris In Propria Persona. DECLARATION IN LIEU OF CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 that---(1) I understand the foregoing to the best of my ability in support of underlying matter(s). (2) The statements made in these pleading(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. (3) The foregoing have been submitted in ("Good Faith") and not for delay or harassment in conjunction to contemporaneously filed [Prayer(s) for Relief]. Dated this 28th, day of June, 2011 /s/ Tommie H. Telfair 35 Hackensack Avenue Kearny, NJ. 07032 Tommie a Teffair, Sui Juris In Propria Persona. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 28th day of June 2011, I caused to be served by U.S. mail an original copy, and additional copies of the within Pleadings in the Underlying Matter(s) upon the U.S. District Court, office of the clerk, 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ. 07102. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Tommie H. Telfair, Sui Juris In Propria Persona Dated this 28th day of June, 2011 Docket Entry No. 76, at 1-5 (bolding removed; all footnotes included in the above given block quotation in original; all capitalization and lack thereof in original; all punctuation and lack thereof in original; italics and lack thereof in original; square and angled brackets, parenthetical marks and all other symbols in original); and
b. eight pages of attachments consisting of:
i. 2-page order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey ("SCNJ"), entered seemingly in regard to Plaintiff's application for certification in Plaintiff's state legal malpractice action against the defense counsel.*fn6 The order indicates that Plaintiff sought extension of time to move the SCNJ for certification and also sought in forma pauperis ("IFP") status. The order states that Plaintiff was given until July 15, 2011, to file his application for certification, while Plaintiff's IFP application was granted in part and denied in part;*fn7
ii. Plaintiff's 2-page letter, addressed to the "Super Court of New Jersey," requesting pre-printed forms to file application for certification and expressing Plaintiff's displeasure with lack of assistance in his litigation endeavors;*fn8
iii. 1-page letter from the Clerk of the Court of Appeals informing Plaintiff that he may proceed IFP in Telfair et al. v. Office of US Attorney, USCA Civ. Action No. 10-4193 (3d Cir.);*fn9
iv. The first page of this Court's 30-page opinion issued in the instant matter on October 20, 2008 (docketed in this matter as Docket Entry No. 14);*fn10 and v. 2-page notice of electronic filing ("NEF") generated by the ...