United States District Court, D. New Jersey
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
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.
L. Hillman, U.S.D.J.
the fifth federal court action filed by Plaintiff, Marcia
Copeland, M.D., concerning a state court default judgment
entered against her in February 2012. 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.)
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.)
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.
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),  and another motion to recuse (Docket No.
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.)
Court will deny Plaintiff's motions. 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