VU URBAN RENEWAL A, LLC v. LEWIS ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY VU URBAN RENEWAL A, LLC, Civil Action No. 22-06773 (SDW) (MAH) Plaintiff, OPINION v. JEREMY LEWIS, December 15, 2022 Defendant. THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Defendant Jeremy Lewis’ (“Defendant”) Notice of Removal of a Complaint adjudicated in Union County Superior Court of New Jersey, (D.E. 1), Motion to Strike Pleadings, (D.E. 4), and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, (D.E. 5), and Plaintiff VU Urban Renewal A LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand and request for attorney fees and costs associated with the Motion, (D.E. 6); and WHEREAS 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2) provides that if a party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay, applications to proceed in forma pauperis are available to plaintiffs or petitioners in order to be excused from paying certain fees for district court proceedings, including those required to commence a civil action; and WHEREAS Defendant’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, (D.E. 5), does not include any of the required, pertinent information concerning Defendant’s income or debts; and WHEREAS a pro se litigant’s submission to a court, although “[held] to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), must still “‘state a plausible claim for relief.’” Yoder v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 566 F. App’x. 138, 141 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2013)); Martin v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 17-3129, 2017 WL 3783702, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2017); and WHEREAS Defendant’s Motion to Strike Pleadings, (D.E. 4), in which Defendant presents issues of an indecipherable nature and labels unknown persons “enemies, belligerent . . . combatants,” and which does not contain any cognizable facts, is not undergirded by any coherent legal basis or bases, and is largely unintelligible; and WHEREAS 28 U.S.C. § 1446 requires that a litigant filing a notice of removal to do so within 30 days of being served with a complaint. Defendant was served with the Complaint and Summons on July 11, 2022. (See D.E. 6-2 at 4.) Defendant filed the instant Notice of Removal, (D.E. 1), on November 28, 2022, a date that far exceeds the 30-day filing timeframe; and WHEREAS Defendant fails to set forth any basis for this Court’s jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and no basis is readily discernable; and WHEREAS the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine provides that district courts do not have jurisdiction over “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Vuyanich v. Smithton Borough, F.4th 379, 384 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). Defendant’s matter was already adjudicated in the New Jersey State Court, and a Judgment for 2 Possession was entered after a trial on the merits occurred on September 29, 2022. (D.E. 6-2 at 3.) Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the State Court’s judgment, and removal is barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine; therefore Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Pleadings is DENIED. Defendant’s request for removal is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE due to its untimely submission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, failure to establish jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and inability to establish jurisdiction due to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED as moot, and Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs associated with the Motion is DENIED. An appropriate order follows. __/s/ Susan D. Wigenton____ United States District Judge Orig: Clerk cc: Michael A. Hammer, U.S.M.J. Parties 3