Gillespie v. Staub et al
| Vincent Gillespie |
| John Does 1-10, Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie, David Angier and Sandra Staub |
| 3:2020cv30121 |
| July 27, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Mark G Mastroianni |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 30 Copy re 29 Order on Motion to Vacate mailed to Vincent Gillespie on 9/15/2021. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 29 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #23 Motion to Vacate #20 Order Dismissing Case. Despite Plaintiff's arguments on the merits, the court agrees with Judge Robertson's Report and Recommendation that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims regarding the occurrence of fraud in the course of state court proceedings sufficient to undermine the authority of those proceedings. Plaintiff has not identified a plausible federal claim for challenging conduct that allegedly injured Plaintiff by affecting the outcome of state court litigation. Contrary to Plaintiff's arguments, private attorneys, though officers of the court, are not state actors. See e.g. Malachowski v. Keene, 787 F.2d 704, 710 (1st Cir. 1986). Plaintiff's reliance on George P. Reintjes Co., Inc. v. Riley Stoker Corp., 71 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 1995) as establishing a basis in federal law for his claims is also misplaced. That case concerned successive litigation in federal court, while Plaintiff asks this court to pass judgment on litigation that occurred in state court. A federal district court's inherent power to grant relief from its own judgments does not encompass authority over actions taken by other courts. Indeed, AS Judge Robertson explained, "the principle that federal trial courts do not sit as appellate courts to review state court decisions" is reflected in the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Dkt. No. 17 at 8.) That doctrine supplies an alternative basis for determining this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claims of injuries allegedly arising from a final judgment in state court. See Davison v. Gov't of Puerto Rico-Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps., 471 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir. 2006) ("[T]he proper forum for challenging an unlawful state court ruling is in the United States Supreme Court, on appeal of the highest state court's final judgment."). (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE pursuant to LR 5.2 by Vincent Gillespie re #27 Objection to Report and Recommendations. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 27 OBJECTION to #17 Report and Recommendations filed by Vincent Gillespie. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 26 Copy re 25 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply mailed to Vincent Gillespie on 8/18/2021. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 25 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Electronic order entered granting in part #23 Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Vacate and Motion for Extension of Time to File an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff shall file any objection to Judge Robertson's Report and Recommendation no later than September 7, 2021. The court will consider Plaintiff's arguments on the merits in an objection, in conjunction with his assertion of lack of notice of the Report and Recommendation, in considering whether to vacate the order of dismissal. The court notes that court records indicate no "unusual phenomena" occurring with the court's management of Plaintiff's cases. The docket activity reports indicate that copies of the Report and Recommendations docketed in both this case and Plaintiff's other pending case were mailed to the same address at which Plaintiff reports having received the court's orders dismissing his cases. In fact, the Report and Recommendation in this case, which Plaintiff reports not receiving, was mailed just one day prior to the dismissal order mailed in his other case, which Plaintiff reports he received. The docket does not reflect that any mailings have been returned to the court.Finally, Plaintiff also asserts that certain documents related to his case have incorrect cases titles. It is unclear from Plaintiff's affidavit which notices/orders he is referencing, but the court notes that because Sandra Staub was the first defendant listed when both cases were filed, docket activity reports for both cases list her name first, though in 20-cv-30050 her name is followed by a notation reflecting her later termination as a defendant. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 24 AFFIDAVIT in Support re #23 MOTION to Vacate #20 Order Dismissing Case MOTION for Extension of Time to 9/7/2021 to File Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Vincent Gillespie. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 23 MOTION to Vacate #20 Order Dismissing Case, MOTION for Extension of Time to 9/7/2021 to File Objection to Report and Recommendations. by Vincent Gillespie.(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 22 Copy re 19 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,, #20 Order Dismissing Case mailed to Vincent Gillespie on 8/9/21. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 21 Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 20 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. Order of Dismissal. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 19 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ADOPTING in full the Report and Recommendation of Judge Robertson #17 recommending this court grant #7 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, though on the basis of an absence of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than for the reasons argued by Defendants. No objections were filed within the allotted time. This court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo and agrees with Judge Robertson's analysis. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Judge Robertson's July 22, 2021 Report and Recommendation, the court GRANTS #7 Motion to Dismiss and dismisses this case without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This case may now be closed. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 18 Copy re #17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Sandra Staub, David Angier, Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie mailed to Vincent Gillespie, P.O. Box 34. Orange, MA 01364 on 7/22/2021.. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 17 Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Sandra Staub, David Angier, Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie Recommendation: For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Case be Dismissed Without Prejudice for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. If the Court does not adopt this Recommendation, I recommend that the Court Dismiss Counts I and II With Prejudice based on Claim Preclusion and Deny so much of Defendants Motion as Seeks Dismissal of Counts III and IV. I Further Recommend that the Court decline, at this time, the invitation to issue an Order barring Plaintiff from filing any further lawsuits in Federal Court arising out of his fathers estate or subsequent litigation without first obtaining leave of court to do so. Objections to R&R due by 8/5/2021. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 16 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Rivera, Christina) Motions referred to Katherine A. Robertson. |
| Filing 15 AMENDED BRIEF in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Vincent Gillespie. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 14 Copy re 13 Order on Motion for Leave to File, mailed to Vincent Gillespie on 12/15/20. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 13 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #12 Motion for Leave to File Amended Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. Defendants have assented to the amended filing. Plaintiff should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures and the court will consider the amended filing rather than the previously filed opposition #11 . (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Vincent Gillespie. (Attachments: #1 Amended Brief in Opposition)(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 11 Opposition re #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Vincent Gillespie. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Certificate of Service)(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 10 SUMMONS Returned Executed David Angier served on 11/19/2020, answer due 12/10/2020. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie served on 10/28/2020, answer due 11/18/2020. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 8 MEMORANDUM in Support re #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by David Angier, Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie, Sandra Staub. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Goodridge, George) |
| Filing 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by David Angier, Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie, Sandra Staub.(Goodridge, George) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed Sandra Staub served on 10/26/2020, answer due 11/16/2020. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 5 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Vincent Gillespie.(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 4 Filing fee/payment: $ 400.00, receipt number SPR004376 for #1 Complaint (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to David Angier, Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie, John Does 1-10, Sandra Staub. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie, David Angier, Sandra Staub, John Does 1-10, filed by Vincent Gillespie. (Attachments: #1 Cover & Category Sheets) (Lindsay, Maurice) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
