United States District Court, D. New Jersey
LOUIS KEEN 307 MCCLELLAN RD. EGG HARBOR TWP., N.J. 08234
Appearing pro se
B. TAYLOR OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
On behalf of Defendants
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D. JUDGE.
Jared Louis Keen, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in New
Jersey Superior Court against the United States Government,
the U.S. Attorney General, employees of this Court's
Clerk's Office, and a person to whom he attaches an
honorific but is otherwise unidentified. The United States
removed Plaintiff's case to this court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
state court complaint, filed on December 1, 2017,
appears to arise from another case brought by Plaintiff in
this District on August 15, 2017. See Keen V. United
States Government Agency, 1:17-cv-06156-NLH-JS.
Plaintiff attached the filings in his federal case as
exhibits to his state court complaint, and Plaintiff appears
to claim that he paid his $400 filing fee for his federal
case but, as best the Court can decipher from his almost
unintelligible handwriting, this Court and the individual
court employees have failed to adjudicate his federal case.
earlier case is no longer pending. On January 30, 2018, this
Court dismissed Plaintiff's earlier filed federal case.
The Court found that (1) Plaintiff failed to state this
Court's subject matter jurisdiction over his action; (2)
Plaintiff failed to state a specific legal basis for his
claims - he requested the return of his $400 filing fee and
damages in the amount of $420, 000 because he was not
provided with a paralegal to assist him, he was not provided
a hearing date, and he was not permitted to speak to the
Clerk of the Court - but he failed to specify whether his
claims sounded, for example, in contract or tort, and he also
failed to specify what laws Defendants allegedly violated,
which was necessary to establish subject matter jurisdiction,
and (3) on that same basis, Plaintiff's amended complaint
failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), and the pleading
standards required by Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 563 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 684 (2009). See Civil Action 1:17-6156, Docket
No. 13. The Court provided Plaintiff with 20 days to move to
reopen his case, attaching to any such motion a proposed
second amended complaint which addressed the deficiencies of
the original and amended complaint as set forth by the Court.
Plaintiff did not do so.
have moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss
Plaintiff's instant case for his failure to state any
cognizable claims. The Court agrees that Plaintiff has not
asserted any viable claims.
sole gravamen of Plaintiff's state court complaint, now
before this Court, appears to request action in his federal
case. The deficiency of this claim is the same as the
deficiencies this Court found in his other case - namely, the
lack of a legal basis for his claims and the failure to comply
with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 684 (2009). To the extent that the remainder of
Plaintiff's current case is a duplicate of his prior
case, those claims fail for the same reasons as the other
Court will therefore grant Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint. An appropriate Order will be
 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) provides
that a civil action commenced in a state court against the
United States may be removed by it to the district court for
the district and division embracing the place where it is
pending. To the extent that 28 U.S.C. § 1446 allows only
defendants who have been served, or who have waived service,
to remove we view the motion of dismiss here to be an implied
waiver of service.
 The United States relates that
Plaintiff's complaint was not served in compliance the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the action was removed
within 30 days after receipt of the physical ...