Patel v. Albright et al
| Maryland District Court | |
| Judge: | Deborah L Boardman |
| Case #: | 8:25-cv-00897 |
| Nature of Suit | 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights |
| Cause | 42:1983 Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights |
| Case Filed: | Mar 18, 2025 |
| Case in other court: | Massachusetts, 3:25-cv-30028 |
| Last checked: Tuesday Mar 18, 2025 5:10 PM EDT |
|
Defendant
Hon. Anne K. Albright
|
|
|
Defendant
Honorable Mary Ellen Barbera
|
|
|
Defendant
Stuart R Berger
|
|
|
Defendant
Theresa M Chernosky
|
|
|
Defendant
George Jarrod Hazel
|
|
|
Defendant
Harvie Wilkinson, III
|
|
|
Plaintiff
Nishith Patel
55 Old Belchertown Road
Ware, MA 01082 |
| Docket last updated: 10 hours ago |
| Thursday, March 27, 2025 | ||
| 20 | 20
motion
Miscellaneous Relief
Fri 03/28 9:58 AM
Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer in Order to File a Notice of Appeal by Nishith Patel(kb3s, Deputy Clerk) |
|
| Tuesday, March 18, 2025 | ||
| 19 | 19
corresp
Miscellaneous
Tue 03/18 4:42 PM
Transfer Notification Letter sent to Prose Plaintiff. (heps, Deputy Clerk) |
|
| 18 | 18
transfer
Case Transferred In - District Transfer
Tue 03/18 4:19 PM
Case transferred in from District of Massachusetts; Case Number 3:25-cv-30028. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
|
| 17 | 17
misc
Staff Notes
Tue 03/18 11:08 AM
Copy re 16 Order on Motion for Reconsideration mailed to Plaintiff on 3/18/2025. (TRL) |
|
| 16 | 16
order
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
Tue 03/18 11:07 AM
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying15 Motion for Reconsideration by Nishith Patel. As the court explained in its previous order, 28 U.S.C § 1404(a) authorizes this court to transfer a case upon its own motion. See Lando & Anastasi, LLP v. Innovention Toys, L.L.C., 79 F. Supp. 3d 375, 376 (D. Mass. 2015) (collecting cases); see also Ritchie Cap. Mgmt., L.L.C. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 532 B.R. 461, 472-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (explaining the existence of related cases in transferee forum weighs strongly in favor of sua sponte transfer). The court exercises this authority and therefore orders this transfer in lieu of screening for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). As the court previously noted, Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) likely suffers from numerous jurisdictional defects that will preclude adjudication of this case. See, e.g., Foss v. Marvic, Inc., 103 F.4th 887, 891 n. 2 (1st Cir. 2024) (discussing collateral estoppel and claim preclusion); Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 907 F.3d 61, 64-65 (1st Cir. 2018) (explaining Rooker-Feldman forbids claims inviting federal courts to review final state court judgments); Tyler v. Massachusetts, 981 F. Supp. 2d 92, 96-97 (D. Mass. 2013) (noting Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943) and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) preclude federal courts from intervening in family related disputes arising in state court); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (holding Rhode Island family court judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity). However, these dispositive jurisdictional issues are better dealt with before the more appropriate federal forum: the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiff's argument that he cannot receive fair treatment in the District of Maryland, premised on unfavorable judicial decisions rendered there, is a not a basis for seeking a forum in this court. Finally, the court has considered Plaintiff's remaining arguments against transfer, as it did when it ruled initially, and finds them without merit. Turning to Plaintiff's remaining contentions regarding the alleged default and its impact on this litigation, the court notes that the Clerk's Office has not entered notices of default in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). This is a prerequisite when seeking default judgment, as noted in this court's standing order regarding default judgment, which Plaintiff has also not complied with. But, more importantly, the federal defendants are not in default (assuming service was proper), as officers and employees of the United States have sixty-days to respond to a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2)-(3). In addition, even if the federal officers were in default, a claim of default judgment may enter against officers of the United States only if the claimant establishes his right to relief by sufficient evidence, and entry remains subject to the court's discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d); Wright & Miller, 10A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2702 (4th ed.) ("Rule 55(d) in fact precludes any default judgment for procedural violations by the United States; in all cases, the claim against the government must be proven."). Plaintiff has not made this showing. Next, as to the state defendants, the court exercises its discretionary authority not to direct entry of a default judgment for substantially the same reasons. See Dimanche v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Auth., 893 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2018) ("[W]e have long cautioned that entry of default judgment is a drastic measure that should only be employed in extreme situation[s]."); Wright & Miller, 10A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2685 (4th ed.) (explaining the decision to grant or not grant default judgment is purely discretionary). Plaintiff does not have a right to entry of default judgment, particularly when the case suffers from clear jurisdictional defects. See Padmanabhan v. Hulka, No. 18-1301 2019 WL 10378226, at *2 (1st Cir. July 10, 2019); see also Groden v. Epstein, No. 24-CV-10303-ADB, 2024 WL 4519724, at *1-2 (D. Mass. Oct. 17, 2024). Accordingly, the court declines to reconsider its earlier ruling, and the Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Any further request for relief should be directed to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. (TRL) |
|
| Monday, March 17, 2025 | ||
| 15 | 15
MOTION for Reconsideration by Nishith Patel.(Patel, Nishith)
|
|
| 14 | 14 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying13 Motion for Default Judgment and Response to Show Cause Regarding Venue as to Albright, Chernosky, Berger, Barbera, Hazel, Wilkinson III by Nishith Patel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." Id. (alteration added). "Courts have unanimously held that it is appropriate to transfer a case sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)." Lando & Anastasi, LLP v. Innovention Toys, L.L.C., 79 F. Supp. 3d 375, 376 (D. Mass. 2015) (collecting cases). Here, after reviewing Plaintiff's response to the order to show cause, the court finds the interests of justice are best served by transferring this case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. While plaintiffs are generally entitled to a strong presumption in favor of their chosen forum, the court finds this presumption has no applicability to this case. The named defendants are current or former Maryland state court judges, a United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, and a United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit. Similarly, the complaint arises entirely from Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with judicial rulings issued by the courts of Maryland, the District of Maryland, and the Fourth Circuit. See, e.g., Patel v. Albright, No. CV GJH 21-2409 2021 WL 7082310 (D. Md. Oct. 26, 2021), aff'd, No. 22-1162 2023 WL 1519512 (4th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023); Patel v. Albright, No. CV DLB 22-3085 2022 WL 17668749 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2022). Moreover, where, as here, the decision to file in the district is clearly an attempt at forum shopping, the court accords even less weight to Plaintiff's decision. See, e.g., Onyeneho v. Allstate Ins. Co., 466 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2006) ("To the extent that plaintiffs are engaging in forum shopping, it weighs in favor of transfer to the more appropriate forum.") Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. (TF) | |
| Friday, March 14, 2025 | ||
| 13 | 13
MOTION for Default Judgment and Response to Show Cause Regarding Venue as to Albright, Chernosky, Berger, Barbera, Hazel, Wilkinson III by Nishith Patel.(Patel, Nishith)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Affidavit of Nishith Patel,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Certificate of Service
|
||
| Monday, March 10, 2025 | ||
| 12 | 12 Copy re 11 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction Order on Motion for Entry of Default mailed to Plaintiff on 3/10/2025. (TRL) | |
| 11 | 11 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Nishith Patel; and denying10 First Motion for Entry of Default Against Defendant Chernosky by Nishith Patel. "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy." Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32(1st Cir. 2011). An injunction is therefore "never awarded as of right." Id. Rather, the moving party must demonstrate the following four factors: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the threat of irreparable injury in the absence of the order, (3) the balance of equities tips in the moving party's favor, and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. Id. Here, none of the factors favor Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff has no likelihood of success on the merits, as he has sued four Maryland state court judges, a United States District Judge, and a United States Circuit Judge, based entirely on his disagreement with judicial decisions they rendered during state court proceedings and subsequent related federal court proceedings. His claims are unlikely to survive application of collateral estoppel, claim preclusion, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Younger abstention doctrine, the Burford abstention doctrine, and the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. See, e.g., Foss v. Marvic, Inc., 103 F.4th 887, 891 n. 2 (1st Cir. 2024) (discussing collateral estoppel and claim preclusion); Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 907 F.3d 61, 64-65 (1st Cir. 2018) (explaining Rooker-Feldman forbids claims inviting federal courts to review final state court judgments); Tyler v. Massachusetts, 981 F. Supp. 2d 92, 96-97 (D. Mass. 2013) (noting Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943) and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) preclude federal courts from intervening in family related disputes arising in state court); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (holding Rhode Island family court judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity). Moreover, the equities weigh entirely in favor of not granting this injunction, as it would be inequitable for a federal court in Massachusetts to interfere with the administration of justice in the State of Maryland. The requested injunction is also not in the public interest for similar reasons, as Plaintiff's decision to file in the District of Massachusetts is a transparent attempt at forum shopping after he received unfavorable judicial decisions in Maryland. Lastly, Plaintiff suffers no irreparable injury when he is required to abide by orders issued by the courts of the State of Maryland, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Accordingly, this motion is denied. Plaintiff is further ordered to show cause in writing by March 14, 2025 why this action should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. (TRL) | |
| 10 | 10
First MOTION for Entry of Default Against Defendant Chernosky by Nishith Patel.(Patel, Nishith)
|
|
| Friday, March 07, 2025 | ||
| 9 | 9
NOTICE by Nishith Patel of Defendants' Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Patel, Nishith)
|
|
| Thursday, March 06, 2025 | ||
| 8 | 8
Notice of Service of Process filed by Nishith Patel. Individual(s)/Entities served: Theresa Chernosky, Anne Albright, Stuart Berger, Mary Ellen Barbera, George Hazel, J. Harvie Wilkinson.(Patel, Nishith)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Affidavit of Service,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Return Receipts,
|
||
|
Att: 3
USPS Confirmation
|
||
| Tuesday, March 04, 2025 | ||
| 7 | 7 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting6 Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se. Pro se litigants must have an individual PACER account to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at [LINK:https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account] . Pro se e-filing account Instructions [LINK:https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-se.htm] . If you already have a PACER account with E-Filing access as a pro se litigant, you do not need to register again, but you must email tracy_mclaughlin@mad.uscourts.gov with the docket number so your account can be updated allowing you to E-file . (MPZ) | |
| Friday, February 21, 2025 | ||
| 6 | 6
MOTION for Leave to file electronically Pro Se by Nishith Patel. (TF)
|
|
| Friday, February 14, 2025 | ||
| 5 | 5
Summons Issued as to All Defendants. 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. (MPZ)
|
|
| 4 | 4 Filing fee/payment: $ 405.00, receipt number 300000632 for1 Complaint (MPZ) | |
| 3 | 3 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. (MPZ) | |
| 2 | 2
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Nishith Patel.(MPZ)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit A,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit B,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit C
|
||
| 1 | 1
COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Nishith Patel.(MPZ)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Civil Cover Sheet,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Category Form
|
||