NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

______________________________ 

:

JEFFREY JENNINGS, :

:

Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 11-02675 (JAP)

:

v. : OPINION 

:

DAVID EXELROD, et al., : 

:

Defendants. :

 :

PISANO, District Judge.

The initial complaint in this action was filed on May 4, 2011, by pro se plaintiff Jeffrey 

Jennings ("Plaintiff"). In an Order dated May 12, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's initial 

complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by June 12, 2011. Plaintiff 

filed an amended complaint on May 19, 2011. In an Order dated June 1, 2011, the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Presently before the Court are various filings made by 

Plaintiff. 

First, Plaintiff submitted a filing on June 7, 2011, which the Court construes as a motion 

for reconsideration of the Court's Order dismissing Plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice. 

[docket entry no. 8]. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is normally appropriate 

only when one of the following three grounds for relief is established: "(1) 'an intervening 

change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become 

Case 3:11-cv-02675-JAP-DEA Document 11 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 51
2

available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.' "

Carmichael v. Everson, 2004 WL 1587894, *1 (D.N.J. 2004) (quoting Database America, Inc. v. 

Bellsouth Advertising & Pub. Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993); North River Ins. 

Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). The party seeking 

reconsideration bears a heavy burden and "must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s 

decision." G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990). Further, the moving party’s 

burden requires more than a mere "recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the 

court before rendering its original decision." Carteret Savings Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 721 

F.Supp. 705, 709 (D.N.J. 1989). The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the high burden of 

establishing adequate grounds for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's amended 

complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff's amended complaint states that the 

President of the United States of America used part of Plaintiff's bill on "Banking Businesses and 

Job" for his "college plan." Plaintiff claims that he sent a copy of his bill, along with his 

business card, to Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. The amended complaint alleges that they 

used parts of his bill to save 68 billion dollars and appears to seek relief in the form of payment 

for the use of his bill. Plaintiff claimed that his bill consisted of setting up office buildings in 4 

corners of the state and one in the middle where people can come get applications for a loan 

along with a computer set up to a database in Washington D.C. Plaintiff's amended complaint 

was dismissed pursuant to Rule 8 because the Court was unable to determine what cause of 

action Plaintiff asserts against the defendants and whether it has jurisdiction to hear this case. In 

support of his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has not asserted that an intervening change in 

the controlling law has occurred or that evidence not previously available has become available. 

Instead, Plaintiff simply expresses his disagreement with the Court's determination. Because 

Case 3:11-cv-02675-JAP-DEA Document 11 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 52
3

Plaintiff has not met the high burden of establishing adequate grounds for reconsideration, the

motion must be denied. 

Plaintiff submitted a filing on June 13, 2011, requesting that the Court return his $350 

filing fee because "this case never made it to court." [docket entry no. 9]. Local Civil Rule 

54.3(a) makes clear that filing fees must be paid in advance of filing a lawsuit and makes no 

provision for the refund of such filing fees upon the dismissal of a complaint for failure to 

comply with Rule 8. L.Civ.R. 54.3(a). Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's request.

Finally, Plaintiff submitted a filing on June 16, 2011, objecting to this action having been 

allocated to the Trenton vicinage. [docket entry no. 10]. Instead, he argues that it should have 

been allocated to the Newark vicinage. In support, Plaintiff claims that he lives in New 

Brunswick and filed the action in Newark. Pursuant to New Jersey Local Civil Rules, in 

allocating a civil case to Camden, Newark or Trenton, the Clerk of the Court "shall consider the 

residence of the defendant, the convenience of litigants, counsel and witnesses, and the place 

where the cause of action arose." L.Civ.R.40.1(a). Thus, the residence of the plaintiff is not a 

factor properly considered when determining the correct vicinage for a particular case.1

/s/ JOEL A. PISANO 

 Any 

objection to the allocation of a civil case "shall be made before the Chief Judge, on notice to 

opposing counsel and to the Judge to whom the case is assigned." L.Civ.R.40.1(d). A case may 

be reallocated to a different vicinage only when ordered by the Chief Judge. Tri-State Hardware 

v. Hunt Constr. Group, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105600 (D.N.J. Nov. 12, 2009).

United States District Judge

Dated: June 27, 2011 

 1 The Court notes, however, that the Comment to Local Civil Rule 40.1(a) explains that New Brunswick is 

within the Trenton vicinage line. Therefore, even assuming that a plaintiff's residence is appropriately considered as 

a factor in determining the allocation of a particular case, this action would be properly allocated to Trenton. 

Case 3:11-cv-02675-JAP-DEA Document 11 Filed 06/27/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 53