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.

Keen v. United States Government

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

May 14, 2018

JARED LOUIS KEEN, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS, FEDERAL COURT EMPLOYEES CAMDEN, CLERK OF COURT WILLIAM T. WALSH, and HON. NANCY HODGES, Defendants.

          JARED LOUIS KEEN 307 MCCLELLAN RD. EGG HARBOR TWP., N.J. 08234 Appearing pro se

          ANNE B. TAYLOR OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY On behalf of Defendants

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D. JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, 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).[1]

         Plaintiff's state court complaint, filed on December 1, 2017, [2] 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.

         Plaintiff's 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.

         Defendants 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.[3] The Court agrees that Plaintiff has not asserted any viable claims.[4]

         The 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[5] 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).[6] 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 case.

         The Court will therefore grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. An appropriate Order will be entered.[7]

---------

Notes:

[1] 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.

[2] 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 ...


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.