CATERBONE v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY et al, No. 5:2017cv00867 - Document 6 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, AND THE OUTSTANDING MOTIONS ARE DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 3/28/17. 3/28/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE'. (ky, )

Download PDF

CATERBONE v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STANLEY J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, or NSA; DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECT AGENCY, or DARPA; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, or DIA; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, or CIA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, or FBI; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE; PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL; LANCASTER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; LANCASTER COUNTY CRISIS INTERVENTION; LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; LANCASTER MAYOR RICK GRAY; LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE; DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-867 ORDER AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2017, after considering the complaint and amended complaint filed by the pro se plaintiff, Stanley J. Caterbone, on behalf of himself and Advanced Media Group (Doc. Nos. 1-1 – 1-6; 1-10 – 1-17), Caterbone’s “notice of appeal,” which the court has interpreted as a motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Carlson’s January 9, 2017 report and recommendation (Doc. No. 1-25); and after also considering Caterbone’s (1) “Motion Dockets.Justia.com to File Exhibit DVD” (Doc. No. 2), (2) “Motion to File Statement ‘Enough is Enough,’” which also contained a request for permission to file documents electronically (Doc. No. 3), and (3) “Motion to File Exhibit Titled ‘Letter to Huntingdon Bank Andrew Grimmit re March 7 Liquidation Offer March 17, 2017’” (Doc. No. 4); and for the reasons set forth in the separatelyfiled memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE except as otherwise specified in the court’s memorandum opinion and in this order; 2. To the extent that the plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief, the request is DENIED AS MOOT in light of the court’s dismissal of the amended complaint; 3. Caterbone’s claims based on the March 8, 2016 incident that took place in Maryland, as described further in the court’s memorandum opinion, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Caterbone filing a complaint against appropriate defendants in the District of Maryland. Caterbone may not file an amended pleading in this court based on those claims; 4. Caterbone’s claims based on the events surrounding his involuntary commitment in July 2015 and February 2016, as described further in the court’s memorandum opinion, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Caterbone filing a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order as to those claims only. Any amended complaint shall identify all defendants in the caption of the pleading. Additionally, any amended complaint shall, as clearly and briefly as possible, state the factual basis for Caterbone’s claims against each defendant, state the basis for the court’s jurisdiction over the claims, and state the relief that Caterbone seeks from this court. If Caterbone fails to file a second amended complaint within 2 the thirty (30)-day period set forth above, the court may dismiss this case without any further notice to him; 5. The “notice of appeal,” which the court has interpreted as a motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Carlson’s January 9, 2017 report and recommendation (Doc. No. 1-25), is DENIED; 6. The “Motion to File Exhibit DVD” (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED; 7. The “Motion to File Statement ‘Enough is Enough,’” which also contained a request for permission to file documents electronically (Doc. No. 3), is DENIED; and 8. The “Motion to File Exhibit Titled ‘Letter to Huntingdon Bank Andrew Grimmit re March 7 Liquidation Offer March 17, 2017’” (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward G. Smith EDWARD G. SMITH, J. 3

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.