United States District Court, D. New Jersey
OPINION & ORDER
Michael Vazquez U.S.D.J.
February 8, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint. D.E. 1, 48. The Court dismissed
with prejudice the Complaint as to Defendant State of New
Jersey, but dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant
Trooper Porch. D.E. 48. The Court allowed Plaintiff thirty
(30) days to file an Amended Complaint as to Trooper Porch,
indicating that otherwise the matter would be dismissed with
prejudice. D.E. 48. Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended
Complaint as of the date of this Opinion and Order. Instead,
he has filed four letters on the docket for this matter.
February 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed what the Court interprets
to be a motion to disqualify the undersigned. D.E. 49.
Throughout, Plaintiff refers to himself as "The
'rogers court'" and orders that Judge Vazquez to
recuse himself "for showing an appearance of partiality,
an appearance of protecting 'the wrongdoers, ' and
usurpation of authority not granted to him."
Id. at 1. Plaintiff complains that the Court has
forced him to "represent the incorporated U.S. person
against my will." Id. Plaintiff also states
that the Court has "shown the appearance of protecting
the 'wrongdoers'" by "usurping the
authority of the tribunal" and holding extra-judicial
proceedings. Plaintiff does not specify what those
"shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C.
§455(a). This includes situations in which he has a
"personal bias or prejudice concerning a party." 28
U.S.C. §455(b)(1). The Third Circuit has described this
standard as one where a "reasonable person would
question [the] judge's impartiality." In re
Gochin, 2018 WL 1391522, at *1 (3d Cir. Mar. 20, 2018).
Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard for recusal. The
Court has no bias against Plaintiff nor in favor of Trooper
Porch. The State of New Jersey was dismissed pursuant to
sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Although the
Court was doubtful that Plaintiff could properly plead
allegations against Trooper Porch, it nevertheless permitted
Plaintiff the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff did not avail himself of the opportunity, although
he filed the motion to recuse the undersigned well within the
thirty-day timeframe allotted by the Court. Plaintiffs motion
to recuse is denied.
February 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a "Solemn Recognition
of Mixed War." D.E. 50. In this document, Plaintiff
claims that the "men and women of the United States and
its various corporate de facto agencies" have
"repeatedly forced [him] to submit to their
authority." On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a
"Correction of Record" to address his "Solemn
Recognition of Mixed War." D.E. 51. The Court is unsure
of what Plaintiff is asserting. Plaintiff appears to be
claiming that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the
Court because he is a "sovereign citizen."
Plaintiff, however, is the person who invoked the
jurisdiction of the Court by filing the Complaint. Thus,
Plaintiff has taken diametrically opposed positions: he has
availed himself of the Court's jurisdiction by filing
suit while at the same time claiming that he is not subject
to the jurisdiction of the Court. Not only is Plaintiff wrong
in his assertion that he is not subject to the Court's
jurisdiction, his "Solemn Recognition of Mixed War"
does not reflect a cognizable cause of action or relief which
the Court can grant.
April 2, 2018, Plaintiff also filed a "Statement of
Truth, " D.E. 52, which reads:
It is the belief of i that the only way the men and women of
the U.S. District Court can alter my claim, ignore my
paperwork, and act outside the law is if they are somehow
Let me make myself clear. Any man or woman, attorney, clerk,
judge, or otherwise who may think they are representing me is
submission requires little discussion. The Court does not
represent Plaintiff nor has the Court ever indicated that it
represents Plaintiff. Instead, the Court ruled on the pending
motion to dismiss, which the Court is duty bound to perform.
has failed to file an Amended Complaint within the thirty
(30) days allotted, and the subsequent filings to the Docket
fail to address the deficiencies noted in the Court's
February 8, 2018 Opinion and Order. D.E. 48. For the above
reasons, and for good cause shown, IT IS on
this 4th day of April, 2018, ORDERED that
Plaintiffs motion for recusal, D.E. 49, is
DENIED; and it is further
that Plaintiffs Complaint, D.E. 1, is
DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
that the Clerk's Office shall mail a copy of the Opinion
and Order to Plaintiff by regular mail and certified mail
that the Clerk of the Court ...