Opinion
Civ. 1:14-cv-352-NLH-AMD
10-17-2023
PETER DIPIETRO, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Defendants.
APPEARANCES: PETER DIPIETRO Appearing pro se DANIEL JAMES KELLY STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX On behalf of State of New Jersey MATTHEW PAUL MADDEN MADDEN & MADDEN On behalf of Municipal Township of Franklinville; Municipal Township of Franklinville, Building Code Enforcement; Steven Rickershauser; and Ed Smith JOHN C. EASTLACK, JR. WEIR & PARTNERS LLP On behalf of Franklin Joint Municipal Court; John Doe, private prosecutor; Judge Joan Sorbello Adams; and Thomas M. North
APPEARANCES:
PETER DIPIETRO
Appearing pro se
DANIEL JAMES KELLY STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX
On behalf of State of New Jersey
MATTHEW PAUL MADDEN
MADDEN & MADDEN
On behalf of Municipal Township of Franklinville; Municipal Township of Franklinville, Building Code Enforcement; Steven Rickershauser; and Ed Smith
JOHN C. EASTLACK, JR.
WEIR & PARTNERS LLP
On behalf of Franklin Joint Municipal Court; John Doe, private prosecutor; Judge Joan Sorbello Adams; and Thomas M. North
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. Gloucester County Sherriff's Dept., No. 11-5878; 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 28).
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 28) 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.