Opinion
Civil Action 23-cv-01259
11-09-2023
JACOB ALEXANDER BLINKE, Plaintiff, v. LINDY LANE SWEENEY, et al. Defendants.
KANE, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, Jacob Alexander Blinke, filed a pro se complaint, handwritten on a pre-printed form. (Doc. 1.) Blinke was also granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. 5.)
In his complaint, Blinke asserted federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state magisterial district judge and a Pennsylvania state trooper. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and various federal criminal statutes. For relief, the plaintiff sought an award of monetary damages in excess of $2 million.
On August 1, 2023, we recommended that this matter be dismissed as unintelligible, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We further recommended that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend because, upon consideration of publicly available state court records, it was clear that any amendment would be futile. In particular, we noted that the plaintiff's claims appeared to arise out of an encounter in which the state trooper issued three traffic citations to Blinke, and he was ultimately convicted on each of the three summary offenses and sentenced to pay a fine by the state magisterial district judge. (Doc. 6.)
On August 21, 2023, the court entered an order adopting our recommendation and dismissing the action. (Doc. 7.) More than thirty days later, on September 21, 2023, the plaintiff filed an “objection” to the court's dismissal order, which consisted of a copy of the dismissal order with the word “objection” written on it, plus a copy of state court records indicating that Blinke had pleaded “not guilty” to the traffic offenses with which he was charged, and that he filed a “special appearance” and affidavit in the summary offense proceedings challenging the jurisdiction of the state court to adjudicate the charges against him, apparently because he was a “sovereign” person not subject to criminal statutes unless specified. (Doc. 8.) On September 28, 2023, the court overruled this belated objection and ordered that the case remain closed. (Doc. 9.)
On November 6, 2023-77 days after the case was dismissed and 39 days after the court's most recent order overruling the plaintiff's belated objections-the plaintiff filed a copy of the court's September 28 order with a handwritten note at the bottom of the last page asking how the state court's disposition of the underlying summary offense proceedings could be lawful in the purported absence of jurisdiction by the state court to consider these offenses. Together with this notation, the plaintiff submitted a copy of a “special appearance” and affidavit substantially identical to the one he had previously filed as an attachment to his belated objections.(Doc. 10-1.) Based on its timing, we have liberally construed this filing as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Aponte v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-cv-00482, 2020 WL 837887, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2020) (construing motion to reconsider under Rule 60(b) where it was filed more than 28 days after entry of judgment); Justice v. Attorney Gen., No. 16-783, 2019 WL 927351, at *2 (D. Del. Feb. 26, 2019) (same); Gilreath v. Bartkowski, No. 11-5228, 2015 WL 2365125, at *1 (D.N.J. May 15, 2015) (same). See generally Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-46 (3d Cir. 2013) (discussing a federal court's obligation to liberally construe the filings of pro se litigants).
The two documents are substantively identical, but with slightly different pagination. The second copy is also dated and notarized, where the first was simply signed without a date or notarization. (Compare Doc. 8, at 5-12, with Doc. 10-1.)
The plaintiff's submission, however, does not reveal any basis for relief under Rule 60(b). The gist of his argument appears to be that the underlying state court judgments are void because the state court lacked jurisdiction over him as a “sovereign” person, distinct from the “all capital lettered” defendant named in the caption of the state court papers. Such “sovereign citizen” or “straw man” arguments have been widely rejected as frivolous by federal and state courts. See, e.g., United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a ‘sovereign citizen,' a ‘secured-party creditor,' or a ‘flesh-and-blood human being,' that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected summarily, however they are presented.”); Clifford v. Petrillo, 823 Fed. App'x 67, 67 n.1 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (citing Benabe with approval); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 276 A.3d 264, 2022 WL 909613, at *1 & n.2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022) (unpublished table decision) (rejecting sovereign citizen “straw man” argument as frivolous); Commonwealth v. McGarry, 172 A.3d 60, 65-66 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (rejecting sovereign citizen jurisdictional argument as frivolous). Thus, the plaintiff has failed to identify a judicial error of law in this court's prior decision dismissing this case for failure to state a claim. See generally Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528, 539 (2022) (holding that the term “mistake” in Rule 60(b)(1) includes judicial errors of law). He has failed to articulate any other basis for relief under Rule 60(b). See Kruse v. Zenith Radio Corp., 82 F.R.D. 66, 69 (W.D. Pa. 1979).
Accordingly, it is recommended that the plaintiff's pro se Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration (Doc. 10) be DENIED.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated November 9, 2023. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.