United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCNULTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Cheryl Ackerman, has brought a series of actions
and appeals from orders of the Bankruptcy Court in No.
17-7032.Because of repetitive filings seeking
the same relief, the bankruptcy court entered an order
limiting the Filing of new motions. Following denials of
bankruptcy appeals, Ms. Ackerman filed this action, a civil
complaint against the trustee in bankruptcy, David Wolff,
asserting many of the same matters that were the subject of
her bankruptcy appeals. By order and opinion dated March 6,
2019, I dismissed the complaint in this matter (a) because
the plaintiff, despite the grant of extensions, had not
served the complaint, and (b) on screening pursuant to the in
forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), because the
complaint did not state an intelligible federal-law cause of
action. Ms. Ackerman filed what I interpreted as a motion for
reconsideration, which I denied by order filed on March 29,
2019. (DE 19) The clerk closed the file, as directed.
Ms. Ackerman has filed another submission (DE 20), which is
difficult to interpret. It refers to an "emergency
appeal" seeking to "reopen the BANKRUPTCY
Matter" and states that there is "New information
for Judge." It cites [Bankruptcy, presumably] Rule 8010.
The clerk filed it in this action (one of many filed by Ms.
Ackerman) as a motion.
pleading, like prior ones, asserts a disjointed series of
grievances, many of them nearly unintelligible. Some relate
to the Archer Greiner firm, which for a time represented her
in proceedings regarding her medical license in 2014. Some
relate to patient files in her home, which was sold in
foreclosure. Some relate to Ms. Ackerman's cardiac
health. There are generalized allegations that the bankruptcy
proceedings were corrupt or otherwise inappropriate. Ms.
Ackerman cites her medical credentials. All of these
allegations, however, are quite familiar from earlier filings
in this and other cases filed by this plaintiff.
to Ms. Ackerman's filing is a copy of a stipulation and
consent order filed in bankruptcy court, dated November 18,
2018. In it, the trustee agrees to reserve as a homestead
exemption some $24, 000 as a distribution to Ms. Ackerman
from the foreclosure sale of her home, despite her having
failed to make any application for such relief. In return,
Ms. Ackerman agrees to refrain from filing further motions,
appeals, adversary proceedings or complaints.
extent this may be intended as a (second) motion for
reconsideration, it is denied, there is no argument in this
motion that was not or could not have been brought in the
earlier proceedings. There is no basis to grant
reconsideration. SeeD.N.J. Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(i); North
River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,
1218 (3d Cir. 1995).
extent this may be intended as a motion to reopen the
bankruptcy case based on new evidence, it is denied. No. such
evidence is specified, and at any rate such a motion should
be presented to the bankruptcy court in the first instance.
See Fed.R.Bankr.P. 5010.
possibility is that Ms. Ackerman may be responding to the
Court's orders in her most recent bankruptcy appeal, Civ.
No. 19-4908. I denied that appeal for failure to comply with
the most minimal procedural standards, such as specifying the
order being appealed and designating the record. My order
gave Ms. Ackerman 14 days to remedy those defects. (19-4908
DE 3) Instead, she moved for reconsideration, which was
denied by order dated March 26, 2019. (19-4908 DE 5) The
current submission does attach an order of the bankruptcy
court. It is a stipulated consent order, agreed to by Ms.
Ackerman, so the basis for an appeal is difficult to discern.
At any rate, it dates from November 18, 2018, so the appeal,
filed on February 6, 2019, would not be timely. (19-4908 DE
1; see Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8002 (appeal must be filed within 14
days after entry of order.) Considered as an attempt to
remedy the appeal's defects, it also fails because the
record is not designated, see Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8010, and
because it arrives well after the 14-day deadline set by the
another possibility is that Ms. Ackerman intended to file a
new, independent action. There is a civil cover sheet and a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. I reject that
alternative, however, because the allegations duplicate those
in already-filed actions, including this one. The submission
fails to set forth an intelligible cause of action. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. At any rate, if the new action were
filed, I would immediately consolidate it with this one.
this 9th day of April, 2019
that the motion (DE 20) is DENIED. The clerk shall close the