UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JUAN WIGGINS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RICKY WILKS, et al.,

 

 Defendants.

Civil No. 11-1481(NLH/KMW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER

HILLMAN, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court by way of correspondence

from pro se Plaintiff Juan Wiggins received in Chambers on

January 13, 2012, and subsequently docketed in this action and in

a related action, captioned Juan Wiggins v. Brian String, et al.,

Civil Action No. 11-1480 (NLH/KMW). The January 13, 2012

correspondence from Plaintiff contains a motion for “Final

Judgment For Summary Judgment” (hereinafter, “motion for summary

judgment”) which Plaintiff asserts was filed on February 9, 2011. 

Plaintiff asserts that the February 9, 2011 motion for summary

judgment was “brought to [the] [C]ourt’s attention on a few

occasions[], and has yet to be heard.” 

The Court notes that Plaintiff submitted the complaint in

this action on March 14, 2011. By Order dated September 7, 2011,

the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis and directed the Clerk to file Plaintiff’s complaint. 

Case 1:11-cv-01481-NLH-KMW Document 24 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 194
(Order [Doc. No. 5] 1, Sept. 7, 2011.) By letter [Doc. No. 21]

dated December 27, 2011, Plaintiff sought to voluntarily withdraw

the complaint in this action without prejudice. Pursuant to

Plaintiff’s December 27, 2011 request under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed

without prejudice and the Clerk closed the file in this action on

December 30, 2011.

Although Plaintiff’s January 13, 2012 correspondence asserts

that the motion for summary judgment was filed on February 9,

2011 and was brought to the Court’s attention on more than one

occasion, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not commence the

present action until over one month later, on March 14, 2011. 

Therefore, the February 9, 2011 motion for summary judgment was

not, and could not have been, filed in the present action, as the

February 9, 2011 motion was filed well in advance of the

commencement of this action. Moreover, Plaintiff has not filed a

separate motion for summary judgment in this case at any point

since the complaint was first submitted to the Court in March of

2011. However, a search of court records reveals that Plaintiff

previously filed another action, captioned as Juan Wiggins v.

Brian String, et al., Civil Action No. 10-1710 (JHR/AMD)

(hereinafter, “the 10-1710 action”), over which the Honorable

Joseph H. Rodriguez, United States District Judge, presided.

In the 10-1710 action, Plaintiff did file a motion for

summary judgment on February 9, 2011. (See CM/ECF Docket Report

Case 1:11-cv-01481-NLH-KMW Document 24 Filed 02/06/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 195
for 10-1710, [Doc. No. 10].) Specifically, that motion for

summary judgment was received and filed by the Clerk’s office on

February 9, 2011. Also on February 9, 2011, Judge Rodriguez

issued a memorandum opinion and order granting Defendants’ motion

to dismiss the 10-1710 action and denying Plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions. (See CM/ECF Docket Report for 10-1710, [Doc. No. 11],

4, 8-9.) Accordingly, the Clerk of Court closed the file in the

10-1710 action and Plaintiff’s case was terminated on February 9,

2011. Because Plaintiff’s case was dismissed on the same date

that the motion for summary judgment was filed, Plaintiff’s

February 9, 2011 motion for summary judgment was never ruled upon

by Judge Rodriguez. Subsequently, Plaintiff appealed Judge

Rodriguez’s ruling granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss to the

Third Circuit Court of Appeals on February 24, 2011. While

Plaintiff’s appeal was pending before the Third Circuit,

Plaintiff submitted a letter dated March 12, 2011 in the 10-1710

action, stating that Plaintiff sought to withdraw the motion for

summary judgment filed on February 9, 2011. (See CM/ECF Docket

Report for 10-1710, [Doc. No. 15] 1.) The Third Circuit later

dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of merit in an Opinion

filed on May 18, 2011. (See CM/ECF Docket Report for 10-1710,

Op. of Third Circuit [Doc. No. 17-1], 4.) 

Having reviewed the January 13, 2012 correspondence from

Plaintiff, the purported February 9, 2011 motion for summary

judgment, and the relevant procedural history from the 10-1710

Case 1:11-cv-01481-NLH-KMW Document 24 Filed 02/06/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 196
action, the Court construes the January 13, 2012 correspondence

as a request by Plaintiff to reopen the present action, 11-1481,

in order for the Court to consider the February 9, 2011 motion

for summary judgment filed in the 10-1710 action and later

withdrawn. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request must be

denied.

Initially, the Court notes that it cannot properly consider 

and lacks authority to rule on, a motion for summary judgment

which was filed in a different civil action before a different

District Judge. Although the February 9, 2011 motion was never

ruled upon by Judge Rodriguez in the 10-1710 action, Plaintiff’s

complaint was dismissed on the same day that the motion was filed

and the dismissal of the 10-1710 was upheld upon review by the

Third Circuit, wherein the Court found that Plaintiff’s appeal

lacked merit. Thus, consideration of the February 9, 2011 motion

for summary judgment by this Court would be inappropriate. 

Moreover, Plaintiff voluntarily sought to withdraw the February

9, 2011 motion for summary judgment while his appeal was still

pending. As the motion was formally withdrawn by Plaintiff in

March of 2011, it is similarly inappropriate for the Court to

consider it in the present action. Finally, Plaintiff also

voluntarily withdrew his complaint in this case by letter dated

December 27, 2011, and Plaintiff’s January 13, 2012

correspondence does not present sufficient arguments to persuade

the Court that the present action should be reopened.

Case 1:11-cv-01481-NLH-KMW Document 24 Filed 02/06/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 197
Accordingly, 

IT IS on this 6th day of February , 2012 hereby

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to REOPEN the file in

this action and DOCKET the January 13, 2012 correspondence; and

it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to reopen the present

action in order for the Court to consider the February 9, 2011

motion for summary judgment shall be, and hereby is, DENIED; and

it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to CLOSE the file in this

action.

 /s/ Noel L. Hillman 

At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

Case 1:11-cv-01481-NLH-KMW Document 24 Filed 02/06/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 198