CLAUSO v. MR. GLOVER et al, No. 2:2012cv03969 - Document 7 (D.N.J. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REOPENING CASE; construing the letters in civil no. 09-5306,docket Nos. 67 and 68 as motions for reconsideration of this Court's prior order; granting and denying in part Clauso's motions for reconsideration; di recting that the Clerk remit to Clauso the filing fee of $5.00 in connection with 12-3969; directing that the Clerk remit to Clauso the filing fee of $350.00 dollars submitted in connection with the submissions made in Clauso -v- Does Civi l No. 12-3971; administrativley terminating Civil No. 12-3969; pltf. may have Civil No. 12-3969 and 12-3971 reopened in the event Clauso submits in those matters his amended pleading; denying informa pauperis application in Civil No. 12-5601; admin istratively terminating civil No. 12-5601; Clauso may reopened Civil12-5601 in the event he submits an amended complt. with in informa pauperis application and fee; directing the Clerk to serve, by regular mail, a copy of this memorandum and order, two copies of a blank civil complt. forms, a blank section 2254 habeas petition form and three application for in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 9/26/2012. (nr,)

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 09-5306 (CCC) Civil Action No. 12-3969 (CCC) Civil Action No. 12-3971 (CCC) Civil Action No, 12-5601 (CCC) V. ME, CLOVER, Defendant. THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO, Plaintiff, V. MR. CLOVER, Defendant. THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO, Plaintiff, V. JOHN DOES, Defendants. THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO, Plaintiff, V, WARDEN LAGANO et al,, Defendants, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPLIES TO ALL ACTIONS Cecchi, District Judge. These four matters come before the Court upon Thomas James Clausots (NClausofl) Civil Action No, filing of four letters in Clauso v. 09-5306 (CCC), Docket Entry Nos. Clausos commencement of a new civil action, Civil Action No. 1. 12-5601 (CCC), 67 - Clauso v. Glover, 70, and Laqano, and it appearing that: Clauso has instituted a number of civil rights and habeas matters in this District. A. Specifically, it appears that: Clauso has commenced at least five habeas matters asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1. § 2254. While still serving the prison term ensuing from his first conviction, Clauso commenced a Section 2254 proceeding, which was terminated by Chief Judge Garrett B. Brown, In re Clauso, 2. 84-3406 Jr. on April 3, 1990. See (GEE) Shortly prior to his second conviction, Clauso commenced another Section 2254 action, which was 1 Following his conviction on first-degree attempted murder charges (and a cluster of related offenses) , Clauso was sentenced to life imprisonment with a twenty-five year parole disqualifier. See Stace r Clauso, 2005 WL 3050649 (N J Super Ct App Div Nov. 16, 2005); accord <<https://www6.state.nj .us/DOC Inmate! details?x=l041067&n=0>>. That conviction was rendered on September 9, 1988. It followed Clausos prior conviction rendered on March 6, 1981, based on aggravated assault, unlawful possession of weapons, receipt of stolen property, etc., which resulted in a maximum sentence of twenty years. See jj In sum, it appears that, starting from at least 1981, Clauso has been incarcerated at all times and has litigated prolifically. 2 errrdnated by Chief Judge John F. 13, 3. 1990. Clauso v. On March 2, 1995, 88-2337 2 (JFG). Clauso commenced his next section 2254 action; Judge Joseph H. Beyers, Gerry on March that petition was denied by Rodriguez on June 6, failure to exhaust state remedies. 1996 for The Court of Appeals denied Clauso a certificate of appealability on December 20, Morton, Civil Action No. Entry Nos. 4. 95-1003 See Clauso v. (JHR), Docket 7 and 11. On December 17, 1999, Section 2254 action. Action No. 1996. 99-5690 Clauso commenced yet another See Clauso v. (AET). Lazzaro, Civil The Honorable Anne E. Thompson presided over that matter and dismissed Clauso s application without prejudice, unexhausted. See id. Docket Entry No. again, 11. as Having his motion for reconsideration denied by Judge Thompson, appealed. 2 see id., Docket Entry No. 18, Clauso The Court of Appeals denied him a The electronic dockets in Clauso v. Beyers, 88-2337 (JFG) was created when the federal court system transitioned from hard cony filings co electronic records, long after Clauso v. Beyers was terminared. As a result, che electronic docket in Beyers does flO provide this Court with the specifics of Chief Judge Gerrys decision. However, the time-line of Clausos many actions in state courts and in this District strongly suggests that Clausos petitIon was dismissed by Chief Judge Gerry as esstea state co:s certificate of appealability on January 22, See 5. , Docket Entry No. 2001. 19. Clausos last Section 2254 application was filed on June 26, Action No. 2003. See Clauso v. 03-3090 Judges Stanley R. who presided, (ELW) , Docket Entry No. Chesler and Freda L. in turn, See , 1. Wolfson, over that proceeding, dismissed Clausos petition with prejudice, untimely. Civil Hendricks, Docket Entry Nos. as 17 and 18. The Court of Appeals denied him a certificate of appealability on April 21, Entry No. B. 2006. See id., Docket 22. In addition to the above-listed habeas matters, commenced at least Clauso ten civil rights actions in this District. 1. While still serving the prison term ensuing from his first conviction, 1983 action, Clauso commenced a Section which was terminated by Chief Judge It appears that Clauso s limitations period expired during application for post-conviction relief was filed. However, having no immediate access to the now-archived decisions rendered by Judmes Chesier and Wolfson, this Court notes that: (a) this observation is not a conclusive finding; and (b) it has no direct imoact on the analysis at hand. Garrett B. Clauso v, 2. Brown, Jr. Koeinqfest, on April 3, 85-2589 1990. (GEB) See . Less than a month prior to his second conviction, Clauso commenced another Section 1983 action. Clauso v. (WGB) . Bassler, Stillwell, Civil Action No, Judges Stanley S. presiding, See 88-3574 Brotman and William G. in turn, over that action, dismissed Clauso s challenges by granting defendants motion for summary judgment, Docket Entry No. 57, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on June 25, Docket Entry No. 3. While Clauso v. Judge Bassler, See id., Stiliwell was still pending before Clauso commenced yet another civil Clauso v. No. Judge Mary L. Judge Brown, 1992. 60. rights action. 91-4109 see id., (MLC), presiding, Ortiz, in turn, Civil Action Cooper and Chief over that matter, dismissed Clauso s claims by ruling upon defendants motions and, Rule 12(b) (6) and summary judgment shortly thereafter, application for reconsideration. denied Clauso s id., Docket The basis for that termination is not immediately apparent from the docket existing on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (ACER) svstem, as PACER was created many ears after Clauso v. Koeinaiesc was terminated. Entry Nos. 8, 52 and 55. Qrtiz was Clauso v. conclusively terminated on December 5, , 4. Docket Entry No. While Clauso v. 55. Ortiz and the appeal in Clauso v, Stiliwell were still pending, next Section 1983 action, Action No. 1996. 97-5839 Clauso commenced his Clauso v, Morton, Civil Judge Cooper dismissed (MLC). Clauso s challenges by granting defendants motions, 12(b) (6) 33 and 51, see , Rule Docket Entry Nos. 25, and directed the Clerk not to accept any further submissions from Clauso. Docket Entry No. 46. Upon Clauso s appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Cooper s determinations. See id., The Court of Appeals entered on May 2, 5, While Clauso v. Docket Entry No. 56. decision to that effect was 2002. Morton was pending before Judge Cooper, Clauso initiated one more Section 1983 action, Clauso v. Alfred J. matter, Lechner, Lazzaro, Jr., 00-1838 (AJL) . presiding over that dismissed Clauso s challenges by granting defendants motion for summary judgment. Docket Entry Nos. appeal, Judge 36 and 37. Upon Clauso s the Court of Appeals affirmed Judge The Court of ADpeals mandate Lechner s decision. 2003. to that effect was issued on July 10, id., 6. Docket Entry No. See 56. Having just initiated Clauso v. Lazzaro, and only one month after Judge Coopers dismissal of Clauso v. Morton, Clauso commenced yet another Section 1983 action, 00-3131 No, See Clauso v. Switaj, Civil Action Judge Cooper directed (MLC). administrative termination of that matter for Clausos failure to prepay his filing fee the alternative, 7. Yet, in for his failure to duly apply for forma pauperis status) No. (or, . See id., Docket Entry 1. while Clauso v. Lazzaro was still proceeding before Judge Cooper, Clauso commenced one more Section 1983 action, Clauso v. Action No. 01-4502 (MLC) . Brooks, Civil Judge Cooper dismissed Clauso s claims in part upon conducting sua sponte review, see id., Docket Entry No. 5, Clauso s motions for reconsideration, 16, Docket Entry Nos. denied see id., and administratively terminated that matter in light of Clauso s attempt to file an interlocutory appeal. Docket Entry No. 33. 7 See id., The Court of Appeals denied Clausos application for lack of appellate jurisdiction, See id,, 8. and no further litigation ensued. Docket Entry No. On June 23, 2010, Clauso commenced one more Section 1983 action, petition. 38. styling it as a Section 2254 Clauso v. Warden, see also id., Docket Entry No. 10-3816 2 (SRC); (re characterizing Clausos submission into a civil complaint and denying Clauso in forma pauperis status) . Judge Stanley R. Clauso v, Warden, Chesler, presiding over instructed Clauso that claims challenging conditions of confinement cannot be raised by means of a habeas application, Docket Entry No. 2, at 1, days from February 14, see id., and allowed Clauso 30 2011, to either prepay the filing fee of $350 or to submit Clauso s j forma pauperis application (which would allow Clauso to proceed without prepayment of fees but with assessment of monthly charges toward his full payment of this $350 filing fee) . jç at 3-4. More than four months after Judge Chesler s issuance of the aforesaid order, a $5 payment, i.e., Clauso submitted the filing fee applicable to habeas actions having no connection to his Clauso Judge Chesler s ruling on v. Warden challenges. that submission is still pending. 9. Shortly prior to the commencement of Clauso v. Clauso initiated yet another Section 1983 Warden, matter, which is currently pending before this Court: (CCC) Clauso v. Specifically, . Civil Action No. Glover, on October 19, Civil Action No. March 1, 2011, 09-5306, Clauso 2010, filed a § 1983 complaint challenging, again, See Clauso v. conditions of confinement. 09-5306 Glover, 1. Docket Entry No. Judge Michael A. Shipp, his On then acting as a Magistrate Judge assigned to that matter, directed appointment of pg bono counsel to Docket Entry No. Clauso. 30, 2011, Esq. 44. On June that action was reassigned from Judge Chesler to the undersigned. No. 35. On March 26, (ilPotterfl) , 2012, Docket Entry See Richard G. Potter, made appearance on behalf of Clauso and assumed representation of Clausos legal interests in that action. Entry No. 54. However, See j, nine days prior to becoming represented by Potter, Clauso filed a pg se application in Clauso v. Glover, No, 09-5306, Docket Civil Action entitled Petition for the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus No, [5] See j, 2254. Docket Entry Because the aforesaid filing presented a 56. mix of unspecified civil rights claims and seemingly new habeas challenges, explained to Clauso, this Court in great detail, the distinction between habeas and civil rights the workings of habeas and civil actions, procedure rules and the pleading requirements posed by Rules 8, Entry No. Dist. 59; 18 and 20. See id., accord Clauso v. at *2_8 LEXIS 89711, Clover, (D,N.J. Docket 2012 U.S. June 26, 2012) In order to enable Clauso s good faith litigation of his unspecified civil rights and seemingly new habeas challenges, this Court directed the Clerk to create two new matters for Clauso, i.e., civil rights action and a habeas action, ordered Clauso -- f cc in those action each such action, and in the event Clauso wished to litigate such challenges pauperis status) a -- to prepay his filing (or duly apply for forma and submit an amended pleading in asserting the challenges relevant to the nature of each particular matter, See id. at *9l5, this Court s order, The Clerk, duly complying with opened two new dockets for Clauso, namely, Matter ), Clauso v. Civil Action No. Glover 12-3969 Section 2254 habeas action), ( New Civil Matter ) (CCC) II. / ( New Habeas (CCC) (a and Clauso v. Civil Action No. Does 12-3971 (a Section 1983 civil rights action) In response to this Courts aforesaid order and the Clerks actions, A. Clauso made the following submissions: In his New Habeas Matter, he duly submitted his filing fee of $5.00 but did not file his amended petition. , B. generally, New Habeas Matter, In his New Civil Matter, filing fee of $350.00, complaint. III. As a result, A. See, Docket. Clauso duly submitted his but he did not file his amended generally, New Civil Matter, Docket. this Court: Issued an order in the New Habeas Matter allowing Clauso additional time to submit his amended petition and directing the Clerk to provide Clauso with another blank Section 2254 petition form. Matter, B. Docket Entry No. 4 New Habeas (entered on August 17, Issued an order in the New Civil Matter allowing Clauso additional time to submit his amended complaint and directing the Clerk to provide Clauso with another blank civil complaint form, Docket Entry No. 4 (entered on August 16, conjunction with the same, 1. See New Civil Matter, 2012). In this Court: scrupulously re-explained to Clauso the workings of Rules 18 and 20, as well as Rule 8, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v, Igbal, 556 US. 662 (2009), and detailed by the Court of Appeals in Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, F.3d 203 2. (3d Cir, 578 2009); stressed that Clausos desire to just go home was not amenable to litigation in either a civil action or a habeas matter, as the judicial branch lacks the mandate to direct clemency release; 3. and emphasized that prepayment of the applicable filing fee in no way assures one success on the s 1 merits (as all matters are resolved in accordance with the governing legal principles, the facts alleged, as applied to while collection of the filing fee is merely an administrative measure having no impact on the substantive outcome of any litigation) This Court observed as follows: in the event [Clauso], mistakenly believing that he can obtain any form of relief by simply paying the $350 fee in [the New Civil Matter] and/or by paying the $5 fee in [the 12 New Habeas Matter] , submitted these monies without having a viable claim, [Clauso] shall inform this Court of his mistake in writing, and the Court will direct the Clerk to simply remit these erroneously prepaid funds back to Plaintiff. The Court notes that: (a) no sanction of any kind would ensue from [Clausos] filing of such written statement, since [Clauso!s] error appears bona fide and committed in good faith belief that a mere act of prepayment of filing fee would qualify him for relief; and (b) the judiciary has no interest in collecting filing fees in connection with actions litigants have no intent to litigate, and it would be inequitable to deprive [Clauso], a confined individual whose financial resources are likely to be scarce, from the funds he might have paid in error. New Civil Matter, IV. Docket Entry No. In response to this Court clarifications, s t four letters in Clauso v. (CCC) A. (Docket Entries Nos. 67 - at 7, Civil Action No. 70) . [Clauso] n.5. Clauso filed 09-5306 These letters: indicate Clausos belief that the State ha[d] to keep B. Clover, 4, no right in prison ; hint at Clausos apparent displeasure with being held in segregated confinement; poetic licence; D, state that the aforesaid paperwork is intended for F, assert a slew of challenges to Clauso s conviction, maintaining that he did not have a pre-sentencing report executed; F. and alleges new claims regarding Clauso s conditions of confinement, asserting that he is being beaten by prison officials. See id, (noting Clausots belief that his soul mate must have written to this Court, referring to Clauso himself as an old dog, referring to this Court as Clauso s lady judge, promising to write [this Court] a poem, stating s 1 that God calls on Clauso, making reference to Clauso endeavor at seeking peace and heaven, asserting that, as a result of Clausos offense underlying his current confinement no one was hurt or injured, and informing the Court that Clauso was good with the Creator and Lord Jesus Christ ) V. Finally, on September 7, 2012, the Clerk received yet one more complaint from Clauso, which arrived unaccompanied by either the filing f cc or a duly executed Lagano, 12-5601 forma pauperis Docket application, See Clauso v. Entry No, Naming six different persons as defendants in 1, that matter, A. asserts, (CCC), that latest complaint: simultaneously, to remove {Clauso] that Clausos warden refused from a cell flooded with human waste and that Clausos warden directed Clauso s transfer to another cell, which Clauso found to be freezing cold during June and July of 2012; B. alleges that a prison guard is beating Clauso; C. states that another prison official took all of Clauso s clothing; D, claims that Clauso was left without food by yet another prison official, E. etc.; and concludes with a request for relief in the form of this Court s order releas[ing Clauso] he has) been since June 9, from the hole [where 20l2. Id. VI. To the extent Clauso s letters docketed in Clauso v. Clover, Civil Action No. 67 and 68, 09-5306 (CCC), as Docket Entry Nos. are intended to serve as a motion for reconsideration, such motion is granted in form and denied in substance. 6 That request for relief is accompanied by Clauso s promise that, in the event this Court would not find a violation of Clauso s civil rights, Clauso s sons and daughter [would] bring the deed that has been in [Clauso s] family since 1914 [to the Court to prove that such deed allows for possession of] 30 acres in South Jersey. See Clauso v. Lagano, 12-5601 Docket Entry No. 1, at 5, (CCC), . . . The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has leld that a litigant s motion for reconsideration should be litigant is seeking a reconsideration of) addresses the merits rather than the mere procedural propriety or lack thereof of that motion, See Pena-Ruiz v. Solorzano, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12436, at *23, n,1 (3d Cir. 2008). However, the very fact of the - indicate that he has filed numerous motions for reconsideration and thus is likely to be familiar with the governing legal standard, the same warranted. the Court finds a brief review of A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. There are only four grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be granted: (a) to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment was based; (b) to present newly-discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 7 injustice; and (d) (c) to prevent manifest to accord the decision to an intervening courts review does not prevent the court performing such reconsideration analysis (of the original application, as supplanted by the points raised in the motion for reconsideration) from reaching a disposition identical either in its rationale or in its outcome, or in both regards to the courts decision previously reached upon examination of the original application. See In the context of a motion to reconsider, the term manifest injusticeu [generally means that the Court overlooked some dispositive factual or legal matter that was (D1LJ. Aug. Zlotnicki, 30, 2007), 779 F2d 906, making the definition an overlap with the 909 (3d Cir, 1985) , that is, the need is direct, obvious, and observable. Tenn, Prot. & Advocacy, Inc. v. Wells, 371 F3d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Blacks Law Dictionary 974 (7th ed, 1999)) [M] ost cases [therefore, I use the term manifest injustice to describe the result of a . H C) CD Cl CD C) CD C) 0) CD C) C) H- CD C) C) CO Cl H- C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) H Cl CD C) c-C CD C) C) Cl HCl Cl CD Cl CD CD * CD CD H- Cl CD C) C) C) C) CD C) C) C) c-C H- Cl CD C) CD CD H- C) CD C) C) C) C) C) Cl CD Cl C) C) CD CD C) Cl - C) CD CD CD Cl C) C) H CD CD C) CC) CD CD Q (-i CD CD C) C) C) H- C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) CD Cl C) C) CD C) H- H C) C) c-C CD H- Cl C) C) C) C) CD C) C) CD CD C) C) c-C H- C) C) 0 C) CD CD C) CO C) CD c-C CD CD Cl CD C) CC) C) o H . CD C) CD CD C) CD C) H C) C) HH H C) C) CD 0 C) C) C) CD C) = c-C C) C) C) CD C) H- Cl CD H c-C HCl CD CD C) CD C) C) CD c-C cC CD ci C) C) Cl H 0 C) CD C) H kC) C) C) CD Cy CD C) CD CD Li) CD * U * 1 ) ---S C)) CC) CD CD C) CX) Cl CO C) 0) 0) Cl) 0) (A) H CX) Cl c-C C)) C) CD C) C) CD H Cl CD CD 0) C) 0 H CD CD CD CD CD -* CD CD 0 H * C U - CC) C) 01 CO <1 C) 0) 0) Cl) CC) CX) C) C) CD C) CC) CD C) CD CD Q -. H CD CD CD * C) H- C) Cl (A) P . CX) Ui H Cl (A) 0) w C) Cl Cl h1 CD - CD CC) H C-i Z U - CD C) CX) cr1 ø CC) 0) CD 0) CD CD Cl c-C C) (-0 Cl C) Cl C) c-C CD Cl CD C) CD CD H H C) - Ci) CD * C) 0) 0) CD CC) CX) CC) 0 -* C) C) Cl C) CD H- C) CD Cl HCD CO HC) c-C C) H- * Cl H- Cl) CD CD Cl 0) C) 0 C) CD 0) H- CD C) CD H- C) C) HCD H- C) Cl CD CD ct C) C) 0 C) c-C C) H- C) CD c-C Cl CD 0) Cl H C) CD Cl 0 c-C CD C) H- C) CD Cl 0 C) C) Cl C) CO C) 0 CD c-C CD 0) C) CD CO C) CD CD Cl CD CD C) C) CD - 0 C) c-C H- CD C) CD Cl H- CD C) C) C) C) CD 0 C) C-i C) C) c-C H- C) C) C) C) C) CD 0) CD c-C C) C) C) C) C) C) Cl) C) Cl CD C) C) C) C) H- CD Cl CD c-C Cl Hc-C C) c-C CD C) C) CD Cl) cc) C) CD CD H- Cl CD C) CD C) c-C C) CD CD c-C C) C) 0 C) H H CD Cc) CD 4 C Z CC) CC) - CD 0 * C) 0) 0) Cl) 0) CC) CD CD H C) C) C) CD c-C C) C) C) C) CD C) C) 0) 0) C) C) C) CD c-C 0 C) CD 0 Z HH- CD H- C) Cl CD C) Li) H H H- C) C) c-C 0 C) C) 0 C) C) C) 0) C) Hc-C CD CO C) H- Cl C) CD CD C) Cl C) CD CD C) CD H- CD CD 0 C) C) H- C) H- 1 C- c-C CD Cl HCD CD CD C C) C) HCD H- C) C) H- c-C C) C) C) C) CD Cl c-C -< CC) Cl Cl CD CD C) H C) C) C) C) CD C) CD C) C) CD H Cl 0 CD Cl CD C) C) CD C) CD c-C c-C C) CD Cl CD C) c-C C) CD H CD C) CD Hc-C H- C) CD 0) H- Cl c-C CD Cl c-C C) 0 Cl CD CD c-C C) C) c-C CD C) C5 C) CC) H- C) 0 C) CD - c-C C) C) CD C) C) CD CD C) CO c-C C) C) C) 0) 0) CD H 0 CD C) C) CD Cl H- C) CD Cl C) C) C) CD C) CD HCD Cl C) H C) CD C) C) c-C CD CD CD 0) C) C) c-C 0 C) CD C) c-C Cl 0 C) C) CD H C) C) C) CD C) C) CD CD c-C CD h- H- C) CD C) c-C C) CD C) C) C) C) o rt C) CD H- C) C) c-C H- C) CD Cl CD H- CD C) C) CD C) C) C) C) Cl C) 0 c-C H- C) CD Cl C) C) CD CD C) 0) 0) ç) Cl CD ct S CX) CD CD H - H H H H- Cl) * 0) CD C) - Cl CD C) Cl CD * C) C) CD C) - H CD C)) 01 C) H- C) Cl W - CD CC) C) CC) 0 CD Cl CC) * -o J C) - H- H- C) Cl C) c-C C) N H * C) * C) C) CD C) C) Cr) CD C) CD C) H CD CD CD CD CC) (11 CC) H Cl CD Cl CC) - H C) - CC) CD CD co Cl C) C) CD C) C) C) j CD C) Cl C) CD H- CD C) C) C) Li) H CD CD Cl CD C) [i) C) CD C)) CD CC) CD C) CC) CD C) h-C) g- CD C) HH H )C C)) H- C) C) Cl C) c-C Cr - c-C CO Cl C) CD CD H C) CD C) Cl H H CD CD (1) C) CD H C) Li) HH H- 0) C) CD C) CD C) H- CD CC) CD C) C) Assisted Living, Cas. (E.D. Co. v. Pa. 996 F. Supp. at 442; Diversified Indus,, 1995) Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (H[M]otions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly ); Edward H. Bohlin, Inc., also Continental 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993) Co. v. Banning Co., (a district court °has considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case under Rule 59(e) his factiess, n) Here, . Clausos letters: (a) state only self-serving conclusion that he is in a wrongful confinement; express nothing but Clauso s (b) unactionable emotions; but (c) have no relevance to this Court s directive to submit amended pleadings asserting Clauso s habeas and/or civil rights challenges. Clauso s letters cannot merit vacatur of this Court s prior orders directing commencement of the New Habeas Matter and Civil Matter and Clauso s filing of amended pleadings in these matters in the event Clauso believes he has new meritorious claims to litigate. VII. While Clauso s letters docketed in Clauso v. Glover, Action No. 09-5306 (CCC), as Docket Entry Nos. 67 and 68 have no bearing on the issues litigated in Clauso v. Civil Action No, 09-5306 Civil Glover, 8 (CCC), these two letters and, The Court reminds Clauso that Mr. Potter was appointed to represent Clausos legal interests in Clauso v. Glover, Civil Action No, 09-5306 (CCC) Clauso would be well advised to entrust the litigation process to Mr. Potter and refrain from making future pp se submissions in that matter, . 18 esrecially, Clauso s letter docketed in Clauso v. Civil Action No. 09-5306 (CCC) , Glover, as Docket Entry No. 69, appear relevant to Clausos proceedings in the New Habeas Matter and New Civil Matter. At this juncture, both the content and the spirit of Clausos letters strongly suggest that Clauso has no viable habeas claim to litigate. Rather, it appears that h.e simply laments over the outcome of his state criminal proceedings and denial of his federal habeas application as untimely, and Clauso seems to conflate, either unintentionally or by design, his conditions-of- confinement civil rights claims with his request for habeas relief. A. as However, The Court is mindful of Clausos emotions. this Court already pointed out in its prior ruling, the mandate of the Article III judiciary is limited to, and resolution of only to, U.S. Const. U.S. 1, 7 Haworth, Art. III, § 2; or 300 U.S. 227, oartes a o an erse 240 Controversies. accord Spencer v. (1998); Aetna Life Ins. definite and concrete, words, Cases (1937) Co. Kemna, See 523 of Hartford v. (a lawsuit must be touchino the leqal relations of eoa_ terests I oter there must be an actual dispute between adveise litigants concerning an issue where there is a substantial likelihood that a decision by a federal rendered within that courts mandate, would court, bring about some sort of desired change or effect, U.S. Natl Bank of Or. v. Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 Ins. Agents of Am., Indep. (1993) (noting that the suit must pursue an honest and actual antagonistic [party] assertion of rights by one that these valuable legal rights against another and [would] be directly affected to a specific and substantial degree by a decision on the matter by a federal court) quotations omitted) (internal No federal judge has a mandate to . act upon their emotions or grant litigants meritless claims (even if these claims are stated with great eloquence, emotion or resort to poetic licence) Clauso s poetic license relief. See Ronald A. letters are not a basis for Cass, Judging: Norms and Incentives of Retrospective Decision-Making, Rev. 941, 944 (1995) ( Thus, . 75 B.U. L. [A popular caricature] of judicial decision-making is extreme legal realism, which supposes that judges decisions depend on what the judge ate for breakfast decision ) (quoting Jerome Frank, Mind 118-59, 207, 264-84 (1930)) . . . on the morning of a Law and the Modern Simply put, dry facts stated in a clear and concise pleading speak volumes for the purposes of any legal proceeding, while eloquent poetic 11 are invariably dismissed as nothings pure rhetoric. Therefore, this Court strongly urges Clauso to reduce his future submissions, if any such submissions are made in the New Habeas Matter and/or New Civil Matter, (CCC), (D.N.J. Litig., v. Laqano, 12-5601 to simple statements of fact and legal claims. Accord Imoore v. at *16 or in Clauso v. Gasbarro, May 24, 180 F,3d 525, Ernst & Young, 2012) 534 List. 2012 U.S. (citing Advanta Corp. (3d Cir. 901 F.2d 624, 1999), 627 the who, what, when, where, Sec. quoting DiLeo (7th Cir. for the observation that a pleading must indicate LEXIS 73114, 1990) [merely] and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story ) B. The letters docketed in Clauso v. No. 09-5306 (CCC), as Docket Entry Nos. the submission in Clauso v. Docket Entry No. 1, Glover, Lagano, Civil Action 67 and 68, 12-5601 and (CCC), especially if assessed in light of Clausos failure to submit an amended pleading in the New Habeas Matter, strongly suggest that Clauso has no viable habeas claim to litigate. Accordingly, it appears equitable for this Court to direct the Clerk to remit Clausos filing fees in the New Habeas Matter. However, out of abundance of caution, the Court will allow Clauso one last extension of time to submit an 9 amended pleading in that action, VIII, While Clausos submissions seem to indicate that he has no vialle habeas claim to litigate, such filings do suggest that Clauso might be striving to articulate civil rights challenges which, if reduced to plain English statements could meeting the requirements posed by Rules 18 and 20, amount to plausible claim(s) However, as of now, within the meaning of Rule 8. Clausos patchy submissions assert a panoply of unrelated transactions, each involving a different defendant and leaving the Court to guess the specific facts at issue in his various claims. this juncture, any, it is entirely unclear: (a) Indeed, which claims, at if asserted in ClausoTs latest submissions are intended to operate as amended claims for the purposes of Clausots Civil Matter f cc) ; and (b) (with regard to which Clauso prepaid the filing which claims, litigated in Clauso v. if any, were meant to be Lagano, 12-5601 (CCC), where no filing fee was received and no j forma pauperis status was In the event Clauso elects to make such a habeas submission, he should accompany the same with the applicable This filing fee(s) or valid in forma pauperis application(s) Courts directive to the Clerk to remit the funds to Clauso shall not be construed as the CourtTs statement that Clauso would be allowed to litigate any habeas challenges without prepayment of forma the applicable filing fee or without properly obtaining phuperis status. . either sought or granted ° In other words, as of now, the Court cannot guess how many civil claims Clauso wishes to litigate and in which actions. challenges, and 20, The panoply of Clausos if assessed under the requirements of Rules 18 well exceed two sets of claims. Nonetheless, the Court is obligated to allow Clauso an opportunity to be the master of his claims. Thus, Clauso may: (a) select the transactionally-related or related-by-defendant allegations he wishes to prosecute in the New Civil Matter and/or in Clauso v. Lagano, 12-5601 (CCC); and (b) reflect on whether he wishes to prepay the applicable filing fee in either or in both of these actions (or whether he wishes to seek in forma paueris status in either or in both of these matters) IT IS, therefore, ORDERED that Action No. 12-3 971 12-3969 (CCC), on this day ofpc the Clerk shall reopen Clauso v. (CCC), and Clauso v. Does, , Glover, 2012, Civil Civil Action No. by making a new and separate entry on the dockets of each of these two matters, reading CIVIL CASE REOPENED; and it is further To complicate the matters further, Clausos submissions are executed in handwriting that is difficult to comprehend. While no pg se litigant is required to type their pleading, a handwritten pleading must be fully readable. Therefore, the Court urges Clauso to carefully and clearly hand-print his pleadings, writing only on the lines provided. Clauso shall avoid writing on the margins or scribbling between the lines. 23 ORDERED that the letters filed in Clauso v. Action No, 09-5306 as Docket Entry Nos. (CCC), Clover, Civil 67 and 68, are construed as motions for reconsideration of this Court s prior order (docketed in that matter as Docket Entry No. 59); and it is further ORDERED that Clause s motions for reconsideration are granted in form and denied in substance, order, docketed in Clauso v. (CCC), as Docket Entry No. Clover, Civil Action No. Clover, 59 and this Court s prior Civil Action No. 09-5306 (and replicated in Clauso v. 12-3969 (CCC), Civil Action No. 12-3971 remain in force; and in Clauso v. Does, and it is further as Docket Entry No. (CCC), 2) shall ORDERED that the Clerk shall remit to Clause the filing fee of $5.00 submitted in connection with Clauso v. Action No. 12-3969 (CCC); Clover, Civil and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall remit to Clauso the filing fee of $350.00 submitted in connection with the submissions made in Clauso v. Does, Civil Action No. 12-3 971 (CCC); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate Clauso v. Does, Clover, Civil Action No. Civil Action No, 12-3971 12-3969 (CCC), (CCC), and Clauso v. by making a new and separate entry on the dockets of each of these two matters, reading CIVIL CASE TERMINATED; and it is further 24 ORDERED that Clauso may have Clauso v, No, 12-3969 3971 (CCC), matters: (CCC), and/or Clauso v, Civil Action Civil Action No, 12- reopened in the event Clauso submits in those (a) his amended pleading(s) and Habeas Rule 2 (applicable to civil complaints) habeas petitions), stating the facts and in accordance with Rule 8 challenges clearly and concisely, (applicable to without resort to generalities, poetic undue rhetoric, licence, Does, Glover, etc,, threats, but rather carefully reflecting on the guidance provided in this Courts prior determinations issued in his matters; filing fee(s) and (b) the applicable forma pauperis application(s); and it or valid is further ORDERED that Clauso s application to prosecute Clauso v. Lagano, 12-5601 (CCC), j forma pauperis is denied. is without prejudice, and Clauso may seek j forma paueris status in that matter by submitting a valid application; Such denial forma puperis and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate Clauso v. Lagano, 12-5601 (CCC), by making a new and separate entry on the dockets of that matter, reading CIVIL CASE TERMINATED;H and it is further ORDERED that Clauso may have Clauso v. (CCC) , Lagano, 12-5601 reopened in the event he submits an amended complaint in that action and accompanies the same with a valid 25 forma pauperis application or with a filing fee of $350.00; and it is ORDERED Ihat Clausos amended pleadings in Clauso v. Does, Czvil Acoion No. (CCC), 12-3971 (CCC), and in Clauso v. Lagano, 12-5601 should be executed in accordance with the requirements of Rules 18 and 20, asserting only the claims that are properly transactionally-related or related-by-defendant; and it is further ORDERED that all Clausos future filings must be executed in a careful, readable handwriting or typed; ORDERED thac che Clerk shall serve, and it is further by regular U.S. mail, copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon Clauso, enclose in said mailing: (b) (a) a and shall two blank civil complaint forms; 1 a blank Section 2254 habeas petition form; and (c) three applications for confined individuals seeking to proceed forma 2 pauperis; and it is finally In the event Clauso believes that his allegations, even though asserted in accordance with Rules 8, 18 and 20, cannot be reduced to statements fitting the space allotted, Clauso shall supplement his allegations by statements neatly hand-printed (or typed) on the back of the page. Clauso shall alert the Clerk to the facc that his allegations are continued on the back of the oaoe bu wricium SEE OVER: ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS ON THE BACK OF THIS PATE. Olauso IS also reminded that, for cc purposes of rIGhts challenges, Clauso shali specify the alleged wromos each named defendant committed and detail the specific facts of each such alleged wrong. 12 if the institutjonal account of the petitioner exceeds t210, the petitioner shall not be considered eligible to proceed forma rauperis in a habeas matter. See Local Civil Rule 26 ORDERED that no statement made in this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be construed as indicating withdrawal of this Cours jurisdiction over any of the above-captioned matters. Claire C. Cecchi United States District Judge 31. 2c; In contrast, in Adkins v. E. I. DuPont Dc Nemours & Co., Inc., 33.5 J.5. 331 1948), the Supreme Court clarified that the district court enjoys discretion to determine whether the ci the fees would be unduly burdensome upon a litigant a civil riqhts action. See id.; see also Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Scuab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915) 27

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.