Opinion
Civ. 1:11-cv-5878-NLH-KMW
10-17-2023
PETER DIPIETRO, Plaintiff, v. GLOUCESTER COUNTY SHERRIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
APPEARANCES: PETER DIPIETRO Appearing pro se PATRICK JOSEPH MADDEN MADDEN & MADDEN, PA On behalf of Gloucester County Sherriff's Department
APPEARANCES:
PETER DIPIETRO
Appearing pro se
PATRICK JOSEPH MADDEN
MADDEN & MADDEN, PA
On behalf of Gloucester County Sherriff's Department
OPINION AND ORDER
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion for Application of Payment in this Court Registry Investment System (CRIS)” and “Motion for Withdrawal of Funds from the Registry of the Court” in this case as well as in four other closed cases: Peter DiPietro v. Landis Title Co., No. 11-5110; Peter DiPietro v. State of New Jersey, No. 14-352; Peter DiPietro v. Morisky, et al., No. 12-2338; and Peter DiPietro v. State of New Jersey, No. 19-17014 seeking the return of either $10 million or $10 billion dollars from the Court's register; and
The motion seeks the return of “$10,000,000,000.00 TEN MILLION DOLLARS plus any accrued interest.” (ECF 24).
WHEREAS, Plaintiff also filed to reinstate two of these closed cases: Peter DiPietro v. Landis Title Co., No. 11-5110 and Peter DiPietro v. Morisky, et al., No. 12-2338; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff's “Motion for Application of Payment in this Court Registry Investment System (CRIS)” and “Motion for Withdrawal of Funds from the Registry of the Court” is patently frivolous on its face in that it provides no legal analysis or any allegations of a good-faith belief that such an enormous amount of money was ever deposited into the Court Registry or would otherwise be owed to him by the Clerk or the Court; nor, given the nature of this matter and a review of the docket, is there any objective reason why such funds would have been deposited during the litigation of this matter or evidence that such a deposit or deposits were ever made;
THEREFORE, it is on this 17th day of October, 2023,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen the case and shall make a new and separate docket entry reading “CIVIL CASE REOPENED”; and it is further
ORDERED that the Motion for Application of Payment in this Court Registry Investment System (CRIS)” and or Withdrawal of Funds”, (ECF 24) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-close the file and make a new and separate docket entry reading “CIVIL CASE TERMINATED”; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Opinion and Order on Plaintiff by regular mail.