Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Agarwal v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. New York

February 6, 2015

DR. ANIL AGARWAL, 207-209 West Sherman St. McAdoo, PA XXXXX-XXXX, MADHU AGARWAL, 419 Esplanade, Maywood, N.J. 07607 & any and all U.S. CITIZENS and permanent residents effected in any way by CONSTITUTIONAL WRONGS OF DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. Congress, c/o Speaker of the Congress, All Federal Courts Judges c/o Court Clerk of United States Supreme Court All U.S. Attorneys, c/o U.S. Attorney General All States of United States, c/o Governor's and/or Attorney General's of the States, Any and All Violators of U.S. Constitution, Any and All Institutions connected with Law, and/or Law Enforcement, Any and All Professionals [lawyers, state courts and municipal courts judges, sheriffs, police officers, court officers] specially connected with Law, Any and All News Media Watch Dogs and Independent Guarantors of U.S. Constitution Rights, Any and All Jane and John Doe's who violated Constitution of America in any way, Rishi Rakshpal, 207-209 West Sherman St., McAdoo, PA XXXXX-XXXX, Judge Susan D. Wigenton U.S. District Court for New Jersey, Newark, NJ, Judge A. Richard Caputo. U.S. District Court, Scranton, PA 18501, Judge Thomas M. Blewitt U.S. District Court, Scranton, PA 18501, All Judges of Third Circuit Courts of Appeal, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, All Court Personals of Third Circuit Courts of Appeal 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Third Circuit Courts of Appeal through The Clerk 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, All Sherifs and/or Administrators of detention facilities situated in the United States, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Sandy De Lo Renzo, Hudson City Saving Bank, 304 Essex St. Lodi, N.J. 07644, Hudson City Saving Bank, West 80 Century Road, Paramus, N.J. 07652, Custodian of Records, Hudson City Saving Bank, West 80 Century Road, Paramus, N.J. 07652, Edward Reuter Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Vincent J. Caruso, Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Gary Paparozzi, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Judge Scott G. Sproviero, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Borough Clark of Lodi, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Judge Tracie Nunno-D'Amico, Municipal Court, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Judge Giuseppe Randazzo, Municipal Court, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Gerry Michata Hudson City Saving Bank, 304 Essex St., Lodi, N.J. 07644, Nicholas M. Alicea, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, P.O. Box 600035, Harrisburg, PA XXXXX-XXXX, Carol Defalco Municipal Court, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Lodi Police Officer #1, Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Lodi Police Officer #2, Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, N.J. 07644, Judge Gregg A Padovano, Municipal Court, 227 Phillips Ave., South Hackensack, N.J. 07606, All Municipal Court Judges in State of New Jersey through N.J. Attorney General, Ronald Dario, Municipal Court, 227 Phillips Ave., South Hackensack, N.J. 07606, Judge Patric J. Roma, Bergen County Justice Center, Hackensack, N.J. 07601, Bergen County Municipal Courts Administrator, Superior Court, Hackensack, N.J. 07601, John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor Office, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, N.J. 07601, Charts Cho, Bergen County Prosecutor officer, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, N.J. 07601, Monica Haung, Bergen County Prosecutor officer, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, N.J. 07601, Mr. Edward T. Rogan, 125 State Street, Hackensack, N.J. 07601, Judge Roy F. McGeady, Vicinage 2 Municipal Court, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, N.J. 07601, Judge Peter E. Doyne Bergen County Justice Center, Hackensack, N.J. 07601, Judge Axelrad, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, N.J. XXXXX-XXXX, Judge Sapp-Paterson, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, N.J. XXXXX-XXXX, Andrew Samson, 27 Horseneck Road, #210, Fairfield, N.J. 07004, Judge Joseph F. Lisa, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, N.J. XXXXX-XXXX, Judge Jack M. Sabatino, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, N.J. XXXXX-XXXX, Joseph H. Orlando, Clerk, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, N.J. XXXXX-XXXX, All Personal, of Appellate Division, New Jersey Superior Court, Trenton, N.J. XXXXX-XXXX, All Banks in USA through the CEO's, Judge Thomas P. Olivieri, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, N.J. 07306, Kristina Gandolfo Murtha, Suite 5000, 701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA XXXXX-XXXX, Goldbeck McCafferty & McKeever Suite 5000, 701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA XXXXX-XXXX, Judge Peter F. Bariso, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, N.J. 07306, Judge Alvaro L. Iglesias, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, N.J. 07306, Judge Maurice J. Gallipoli, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, N.J. 07306, Patricia A. Krogman, 574 Summit Avenue, Jersey City, N.J. 07306, Judge Michael L. Ravin, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, N.J. 07306, The Clerk, Hudson County Superior Court, N.J. 07306, The Sherif, Hudson County, Jersey City, N.J. 07306, Judge Kenneth J. Slomienski, Bergen County Justice Center, Hackensack, N.J. 07601, Judge Hector R. Velazquez, Hudson County, Jersey City, N.J. 07306, Judges of Hudson County, Jersey City, N.J. 07306, Borough of Maywood and Borough of Paramus, New Jersey, Governor and Attorney General, of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA 17120, All District Courts of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through Attorney General of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, To 10, 0001 to be identified as Jane & Jon doe, Defendants.

REPORT and RECOMMENDATION

KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs, Dr. Anil Agarwal and Madhu Agarwal, proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint in May 2014, alleging violations of the First, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief[1] Before the Court is a motion by defendants Borough of Lodi, Edward Reuter, Vincent J. Caruso, Gary Paparozzi, Judge Scott G. Sproviero, Borough Clerk of Lodi, Judge Tracie Nunno-D'Amico, Judge Giuseppe Randazzo, Carol DeFalco, Lodi Police Officer #1, Lodi Police Officer #2, Judge Gregg A Padovano, Ronald Dario and the Borough of Maywood for an order dismissing the complaint, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(5) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, the movants request that, should the court "deny any of the Defendants [sic] Request to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint... that Plaintiff's [sic] Amended Complaint be Severed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 21." The plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs commenced this action on March 18, 2014. Thereafter, on March 25, 2014, your Honor directed the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint to the court's Pro Se Office within sixty (60) days. On May 30, 2014, the Pro Se Office received the plaintiffs' amended complaint, Docket Entry No. 7.[2]

Plaintiffs' Contentions

A) First Amendment Claim

Through the amended complaint, the plaintiffs contend that, inasmuch as the First Amendment to the Constitution allows for "petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances... any Federal Courts [sic] Rules, State and/or County law and/rules which can [in] any way prohibit petitioning (by way of putting any extra burden on petitioner should be unconstitutional) should be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL." The plaintiffs seek a declaration, inter alia, that: 1) "[c]ourt fees are unconstitutional, since they "can be prohibitive" and, thus, they should be "returned to the payers"; and 2) "[a]ll incarceration facilities in [the] United States should and have to follow inmates [sic] rights to free exercise of religion, '" and 'freedom of speech.'" (emphasis in original). According to the plaintiffs, one of them, who is not identified, has been arrested a "few times without due process and.. was denied free exercise of religion and freedom of speech in more than one way." The plaintiffs also seek a declaration that all court rules or regulations which burden a petitioner "like service of notices[, ] etc. may and/or can be prohibitive." The plaintiffs maintain that when a petition is filed "it needs to be provided due process and when anyone acts "sua sponte [other [sic] word for it is ARBITRARY'] VIOLATE'S [sic] DUE - PROCESS [sic] AND THUS VIOLATES ITS (JUDGE/ACTOR) OATH AND VOIDS IT [sic] JURISDICTION OF OFFICE [sic]" the person holds. (emphasis in original).

B) Seventh Amendment Claim

The plaintiffs also contend that the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution provides for the right to a jury trial "in certain civil cases, according to common law." (emphasis in original). Thus, in every instance where a jury trial is requested, the "presiding officer (Judge) cannot discard [the] Jury [sic] trial request and give himself [the] right of becoming a Jury." The plaintiffs demand a declaration, inter alia that: 1) anyone violating the petitioner's constitutional right to a jury trial is violating the Constitution; 2) anyone who violates the Constitution cannot take an oath of office and, furthermore, any office holder subject to an oath of office who violates that oath relinquishes his or her office; 3) anyone who violates an oath of office and fails to establish that he or she understood the oath of office makes holding that office void ab initio; 4) once it is established when an office holder violated his or her oath of office or the point at which he or she did not understand the oath of office, the violator becomes "liable of holding the office fraudulently, giving rise to civil and criminal penalties"; 5) a "court or jury can pass [a] writ of QUO WARRANTO' to remove that violator of [the] oath of office"; 6) "anyone requesting any summary trial in Jury Trial [sic] cases should be prosecuted for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE"; 7) any court personnel, prosecutors or attorneys "submitting any fact[, ] which they have not verified themselves [, that is] found to be [untruthful, ] should be... prosecuted for obstruction of Justice [sic]"; 8) "any and all retirement/pension benefits of [a] person/s that violates the oath/constitution [sic] are forfeited"; and 9) "all cases dismissed without [a] Jury Trial [sic] by the Judge [sic] should be restored to [the] respective court calendar."

C) Fourteenth Amendment Claim

According to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as lain STATES [sic] of [the] United States have very simple laws of Handicap [sic] parking which cannot be said to be equal protection between handicapped and not handicapped... any fines collected by any States [sic] [should] be returned to the people who paid it [sic]."

Notwithstanding the various claims made by the plaintiffs, their amended complaint is devoid of factual allegations tending to show how, if at all, any of the defendants engaged in misconduct or what the particular misconduct is for which he, she or it is liable to the plaintiffs.

Movants' Motion

In response to the plaintiffs' amended complaint, the movants filed the instant motion, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(5) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking an order dismissing the complaint for insufficient service of process and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In addition, as noted above, the movants request that, in the event any ground upon which they seek to dismiss the amended complaint is not granted by the court, the plaintiffs' amended complaint be severed, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of their motion to dismiss, the movants submitted a certification by their attorney, Christopher C. Botta ("Botta"), and a memorandum of law styled, "Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss."[3] Attached to Botta's certification are "Exhibit A, " ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.