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.

Copeland v. Township of Bellmawr

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 8, 2019

MARCIA COPELAND, M.D., Plaintiff,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF BELLMAWR, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE NJ, JIM BRALEY, MAYOR OF BELLMAWR, JSC MARY EVA COLALILLO, JSC DEBORAH SILVERMAN KATZ, JSC ROBERT MILLENKY, ROBERT SALDUTTI, ESQ., ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, LISA SHARKEY, JUDGE ANTHONY PUGLISI, ANDREW KARCICH, ESQ., SCOTT LEVINE, ESQ., and MARTY ABO, Defendants.

          Marcia Copeland, M.D. 2 Apple Ridge Way Plaintiff appearing pro se

          Jeffrey S. Craig kelley, Wardell, Craig, Annin & Baxter, LLP On behalf of the Bellmawr Defendants

          Meliha Arnautovic Office of the Attorney General of N.J. On behalf of Defendants the State of New Jersey, Attorney General Office, JSC Mary Eva Colalillo, JSC Deborah Silverman Katz, JSC Robert Millenky, Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, Judge Anthony Puglisi

          REbecca K. McDowell Saldutti law Group On behalf of Defendant Robert Saldutti, Esq.

          Meredith Kaplan Stoma Morgan Melhuish Abrutyn On behalf of Defendants Lisa Sharkey and Marty Abo

          Fardene E. Blanchard Lynch & Karchich LLC On behalf of Defendant Andrew Karcich, Esq.

          Melissa J. Kanbayashi Marks, O'neill, O'brien, Doherty & Kelly, PC Cherry Tree Corporate Center On behalf of Defendant Scott Levine, Esq.

          OPINION

          Noel L. Hillman, U.S.D.J.

         This is the fifth federal court action filed by Plaintiff, Marcia Copeland, M.D., concerning a state court default judgment entered against her in February 2012.[1] On August 7, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against all defendants on the bases of judicial immunity, res judicata, New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and Plaintiff's failure to state any cognizable claims. (Docket No. 95.)

         In that same Opinion, the Court found “that the history of this case and Plaintiff's unrelenting efforts to relitigate a 2012 state court judgment by filing numerous, repetitive, and unmeritorious lawsuits in both state and federal court against any and all parties involved” warranted the imposition of sanctions in the form of a litigation preclusion order. (Id. at 14-15.) Accordingly, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause as to why this Court should not enter a preclusion order and enjoin Plaintiff from filing any claims in this District regarding the subject matter of this case without prior permission of the Court. (Id. at 15.)

         Two days later on August 9, 2018, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff. (Docket No. 97.) The letter did not address the Court's Order to Show Cause regarding a litigation preclusion order, and instead appeared to reargue the basis for her claims.

         On August 21, 2018, simultaneous with Plaintiff filing a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit (Docket No. 98), Plaintiff filed a motion for recusal (Docket No. 99) and a motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 100). On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief (Docket No. 104), [2] and another motion to recuse (Docket No. 106).

         Plaintiff seeks this Court's recusal due to “bias and intellectual dishonesty, and implication of his judicial post with criminal operations.” (Docket No. 99 at 1.) Plaintiff also demands “an immediate restoration of my Complaint to the docket within 15 days for adjudication, or face a Copeland reset of the New Jersey State and Federal judicial system.” (Docket No. 100 at 1.) Plaintiff asks that this Court transfer her case to an outside vicinage and be removed from the case. (Id. at 2.)

         The Court will deny Plaintiff's motions.[3] In her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff reargues the factual bases for her claims, but Plaintiff does not specifically pinpoint where the Court erred in its analysis, other than to generally disagree with the outcome. This does not satisfy the standards under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), or ...


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.