Source: https://withoutdueprocess.wordpress.com/third-circuit-courts-of-appeals-december-07-2015-filling/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:36:23+00:00

Document:
7 County, Judge Powers presided.
8 On November 7, 2012 I filed a Notice of Removal to United States Federal Court.
9 On January 7, 2012 my case was remanded back to NJ State Superior Court in Bergen County.
14 On April25, 2013, the Complaint was refiled with United States Federal Court.
17 On May 14, 2013 Judge Cavanaugh wrote; opposition briefs due on July 1, 2013. Reply briefs.
19 motion being determined on the papers submitted.
20 On July 1, 2013 A notice for a default judgment was entered by me to the court.
22 dismiss, for failure to state the cause.
23 On June 4, 2013, Request for an Oral Argument, Federal Civil RuleR 78.l(a), denied.
26 On June 21,2013, Motion to Join NJ Public Defenders Office, submitted to the court.
30 prime facia evidence and is indisputable.
37 the date of my first filing which was in State Court of NJ, Bergen Vintage.
41 District Court that the case will be reassigned to Judge William Martini.
47 and Bergen County Public Defender.
55 Defense motion to dismiss.
57 transfer to Federal Court of Appeals District III.
62 Judge Martini stated that the only defendant left was the Department of Defense.
71 to harass and attempt to get me to move.
90 clearly demonstrate a lesion which should be biopsied.
96 misrepresentation and fraud by the Army.
106 dismisses my complaint with prejudice.
113 complaint that is facially invalid.
119 complaint that is facially invalid.
12 6 hospital records that demonstrate me being beaten by police.
131 encounter with Sgt. Mark Rice. I have given evidence through multiple emails.
132 North Arlington, had Mark Yampaglia Esq, illegally place me in the military by court order.
134 an effort to ensure my silence.
142 have been violated including the 4th , 5th , 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments.
147 entire case may be removed. According to Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715(1996), United Mine Workers v.
151 was violated and the court has subject-matter jurisdiction.
157 case belongs in state court due to this fact.
167 consent and that that the existence of consent is a prerequisite to jurisdiction.” United States v.
175 review. The FTCA overcomes this barrier if a Federal Employee disregards public policy written.
17 7 to abide by the regulations. Failure to do so bars the DoD from the Sovereign Immunity Clause.
180 and procedure has already been established that report and intervention must be taken.
20 4 against the policy and protocol written by the DoD.
21o Bank, 879 F. 2d 1186, 1195 (3d Circ. 1989).
216 released to go directly to Officer Basic Course.
219 take a report years ago. Evidence was submitted via email to the court. According to Fiswick v.
225 v. Roberts, 251 F. App’x 774, 777 (3rd Cir.2007).
233 Federal Civil Rule 4 and 5.
239 refused to help me. There were no monthly updates on the status of my report.
241 submit a claim due to threat and torture. The matter cannot be dismissed with prejudice.
2 44 to my military service. No defendant can be dismissed.
2 4 5 Legal Argument m Defendants Wrongfully Dismissed.
251 1983 action may be brought for a violation of procedural due process.
254 the deprivation of such an interest without due process of law.
263 deprivations provided by statute or tort law. Thus an oral argument should have been granted.
268 explaining why oral argument should, or need not, be permitted.
271 any of the following reasons.
275 decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument.
277 court, that my claims to prime facie evidence are valid. Federal Civil Rule 34.
309 falsely imprisoned and sent directly to OBC .
317 28 U.S.C. § § 1346 U.S. 15, 28 (1953).
601 Market Street; Philadelphia, PA 19106 through notifying the United States District Court in Newark. I was instructed to file the appeal with you which will then be filed electronically by you the New Jersey Federal Court to the third circuit court of appeals of the United States of America.
Norton, Sheehy, & Higgins P.C.
Federal Civil Rule 34……………………………………………………plO N.J.S.A.
Franchise Tax Bd V. United States Postal Service, 467 U.S.
NORTH ARLINGTON MUNICIPALITY et al.
the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
against North Arlington Municipality and Bergen Regional Medical Center on the grounds that the claims against those entities were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ECF No. 23.
After Judge Cavanaugh retired, the case was transferred to this Court. ECF No. 25.
subject to a facial challenge.
was timely. See Clerk’s Text Order dated July 18, 2014; ECF No. 33.
2401(b), 2675(a); White-Squire, 592 F.3d at 458. This requirement cannot be waived; a plaintiff’s failure to comply mandates dismissal of the claim for lack ofsubject-matter jurisdiction. See e.g., Medina v. City of Philadelphia, 219 Fed.Appx.169, 171-73 (3d Cir. 2007). Plaintiff bears the burden to prove compliance with the FTCA’s administrative claim requirements. Livera v. First Nat’l State Bank, 879 F.2d 1186, 1195 (3d Cir. 1989).
dismissal is with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
$10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Former members of the military services have used the Little Tucker Act as a basis of jurisdiction when suing the United States for monetary relief. See e.g.
Finally, the doctrine of sovereign immunity also bars Plaintiff’s other claims, even after accepting all allegations in the Complaint as true. See U.S. Postal Service v. Flamingo Indus.
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341-45 (1979) (same for 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1988). The Court therefore lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, the Federal Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint against the Federal Defendant is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. An appropriate order follows.
Plaintiff’s pro se status. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
a single responsive brief or complex/consolidated proceedings in which the parties are seeking to file jointly or the subject matter clearly requires expansion of the page or word limitations.
all motions to exceed the page/word limitations for briefs since the page/word limitations, prescribed by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7), should be sufficient to address all issues in an appeal.
request shall include an explanation of why counsel could not have foreseen any difficulty in complying with the limitations in time to seek advance approval from the panel.
This order shall not apply to capital habeas cases.
Court’s CM/ECF website at http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/ecfwebsite.
available on our website at http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov.
inform the Clerk of the Court of Appeals in writing of the date and type of motion that was filed.
The case in the court of appeals will not be stayed absent such notification.
The requirements for the filing of an appearance form, disclosure statement and civil appeal information statement are waived for pro se litigants.
These forms must be filed within (14) fourteen days of the date of this letter.
caption carefully and promptly advise this office in writing of any discrepancies.
Douglas F. Ciolek, Esq. Kelly Corrubia, Esq. Harry D. Norton Jr., Esq.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 § 1346
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2401
 § 1491
 v. 
 v. 
 v.