United States District Court, N.D. New York
JOHN DAVID LEPRE Plaintiff, Pro Se, Kingsley, PA.
ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, ESQ., JAMES B. McGOWAN, ESQ., HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General for the State of New York, Counsel for Defendants, New York State Insurance Fund and the State of New York Albany, NY
WILLIAM F. LARKIN, ESQ., HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN, United States Attorney for the N.D.N.Y., Counsel for Defendants, The United States James Hanley U.S. Courthouse Syracuse, NY.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.
Currently before the Court in this action filed by pro se plaintiff, John David Lepre ("Plaintiff") against the three above-named government entities are (1) a motion for relief from this Court's August 18, 2014 Judgment ("the Judgment") pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. No. 52); (2) a letter requesting entry of default against defendants (Dkt. No. 54); and (3) a letter motion requesting a three-judge court (Dkt. No. 59) by Plaintiff. For the reasons set forth below, each of Plaintiff's motions are denied.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2014, this Court issued a Decision and Order granting motions to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint by defendants New York State Insurance Fund and State of New York (Dkt. No. 10) and by defendant United States (Dkt. No. 19) and denying motions by Plaintiff for an Order (1) identifying Defendants as corporate rather than government entities; (2) sanctioning Defendants for delaying this action; (3) granting Plaintiff judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative, summary judgment; and (4) providing the status of this action (Dkt. Nos. 37, 45, 46 and 47). The Court further concluded that, because there is no basis in law or fact for any of Plaintiff's claims, leave to re-plead would be futile. Therefore, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint as against all Defendants with prejudice. ( See Dkt. No. 48.) Consequently, Judgment was entered against Plaintiff in favor of Defendants. ( See Dkt. No. 49.)
Familiarity with the underlying Decision and Order is presumed. See Lepre v. New York State Ins. Fund, No. 13-CV-0926, 2014 WL 4093658 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2014).
A. Plaintiff's Rule 60 Motion
Generally, liberally construed, in support of his motion for relief from the Judgment, Plaintiff argues that the Judgment is void because this Court committed judicial misconduct by (1) failing to convene a panel of three judges and (2) acting outside of its jurisdiction as an Article I Court in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. ( See generally Dkt. No. 52.)
Generally, in response to Plaintiff's motion, defendant United States asserts the following two arguments. First, the United States argues, Plaintiff fails to make a colorable argument for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Second, and finally, the United States argues, Plaintiff is not entitled to a three-judge panel. ( See generally Dkt. No. 53.) The New York State defendants join in the United States' response, but add that this Court's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint was proper for all of the reasons set forth in its Decision and Order. ( See generally Dkt. No. 56.)
B. Plaintiff's Additional "Motions"
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff requests an entry of default against the Defendants because their responses to his Rule 60 motion were not timely filed. ( See generally Dkt. No. 56.)
Plaintiff's subsequent "letter motion, " filed after the Defendants filed their responses to Plaintiff's Rule 60 motion, is entitled, "Demand for Article III Court" and includes Plaintiff's notices to Defendants that their respective "out of ...