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.

Avila v. State

United States District Court, Third Circuit

August 29, 2013

ABDIEL F. AVILA, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Defendants.

OPINION

JOEL A. PISANO, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's filing of three motions, see Docket Entries Nos. 13, 14 and 15 (seeking reconsideration of this Court's prior ruling and this Court's recusal), and upon Plaintiff's application for transfer this matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge. See Docket Entry No. 16. For the reasons detailed below, Plaintiff's motions will be denied, and his application will be dismissed.

On February 7, 2013, Plaintiff, an inmate presently serving his prison term at the New Jersey State Prison, submitted for filing his civil complaint ("Complaint") accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915.[1] See Docket Entry No. 1.

The Court denied Plaintiff in forma pauperis status since Plaintiff had already incurred three strikes and directed Plaintiff to prepay $350 filing fee. See Docket Entry No. 2. The Court also noted numerous deficiencies in Plaintiff's complaint and directed Plaintiff to submit an amended pleading clarifying Plaintiff's challenges in the event he prepays the filing fee. See id.

In response, Plaintiff submitted an amended pleading, see Docket Entry No. 4, and another in forma pauperis application, see Docket Entry No. 5, accompanied by a motion for reconsideration. See Docket Entry No. 6 (effectively asserting that the Court had to address Plaintiff's amended pleading on the merits prior to resolving the filing fee issue). The Court redenied Petitioner in forma pauperis status without reaching the merits of his amended pleading. See Docket Entry No. 7.

On April 16, 2013, Plaintiff prepaid his filing fee and followed it by two motions, one falsely asserting that this Court dismissed his original complaint on the merits without providing Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend, see Docket Entry No. 9, and another requesting service of Plaintiff's amended pleading upon Defendants without screening. See Docket Entry No. 10.

The Court, however, screened Plaintiff's amended complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[2] See Docket Entry No. 11.

Specifically, the Court noted that Plaintiff asserted his redemptionist/sovereign citizen beliefs and, through the prism of these beliefs, challenged his arrest (that took place on June 30, 2006), his conviction/sentence and his resulting incarceration. See id. at 3. Addressing Plaintiff challenges to his conviction/sentence and incarceration, and his challenges to the execution of his sentence within the meaning of the Second Chance Act, the Court pointed out that such challenges were subject to dismissal for lack of habeas jurisdiction even had they been viable. See id. at 3-4 (elaborating on the same and providing Plaintiff with the relevant case law).

Turning to Plaintiff's claim seeking injunctive relief of expungement, the Court found Plaintiff's claim without merit. See id. at 4. Analogously, the Court entertained the merits of Plaintiff's claim seeking monetary damages for his conviction/incarceration and found that claim premature under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Docket Entry No. 11, at 4-5. Finally, turning to Plaintiff's challenges attacking his arrest, the Court dismissed that claim as facially untimely under Wallace v. Kato , 549 U.S. 384 (2007), and the governing statute of limitations law. See id. at 6-7 and n. 3.

Since the aforesaid deficiencies of Plaintiff's challenges could not be cured by another repleading, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice. See id. at 7. The Court's opinion to that effect, see Docket Entry No. 11 ("May Opinion"), was issued on May 21, 2013, and docketed together with an appropriate order. See Docket Entry No. 12 ("May Order").

Within the following five weeks, Plaintiff filed his three motions and one application at bar. See Docket Entries Nos. 13 to 16.

The first motion sought reconsideration of the Court's May Order. See Docket Entry No. 13. That motion, a 24-page submission, accused to the undersigned of "bad behavior, " see Docket Entry No. 13, at 2, reasserted habeas challenges to Plaintiff's conviction, [3] see id. at 2-4 and 12-16, alleged that the Court violated Plaintiff's rights by screening Plaintiff's pleading for sua sponte dismissal, see id. at 4-5, expressed Plaintiff's opinion that this Court's legal analysis was "confusing, conflicting and contradictory, " id. at 5, recited, again, Plaintiff's challenges to his June 2006 arrest, see id. at 6-7, alleged that Plaintiff was entitled to amend his non-curableby-amendment claims because he prepaid his filing fee of $350, see id. at 7-8, asserted Plaintiff's prior district-and appellate-level frivolous litigations were "immaterial" here, id. at 8-9, and repeated Plaintiff's sovereign citizenship/redemptionist beliefs so to support his jurisdictional challenges to the authority of his convicting state court. See id. at 9-11. The remainder of Plaintiff's motion was dedicated to a discussion of the timeliness and prematurity issues, as Plaintiff perceived them. See id. at 16-23.

Plaintiff's next motion, see Docket Entry No. 14, included a 28-page brief which "rejected" this Court's May Opinion and repeated Plaintiff's aforesaid statements; it also requested that the ruling on Plaintiff's motions would be made by the Magistrate Judge assigned to this matter. See Docket Entry No. 14-1. Plaintiff's third motion sought recusal of the undersigned and asserted bias on the part of this Court. See Docket Entry No. 15.

Plaintiff's final application was a request for final resolution of this matter by the Magistrate ...


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.