United States District Court, D. Delaware
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County C.A. No. N16L-03-181 EMD
Gregory Tucker filed a notice of removal on August 14, 2018,
of LSF9 Master Participation Trust v. Tucker,
Delaware State Court No. N16L-03-181 EMD (Del. Super.). (D.I.
2) Defendant appears pro se and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On November 29,
2018, the Court summarily remanded the matter to the Superior
Court of the State of Delaware in and for New County. (D.I.
18, 19) Defendant moves for reconsideration and also moves to
amend his notice of removal. (D.I. 22, D.I. 24)
removed this foreclosure action from the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. The facts
of the case are set forth in the Court's November 29,
2018 memorandum opinion and order that remanded this matter
for lack of federal court jurisdiction, under the
Younger abstention doctrine because there were
ongoing state proceedings and, to the extent Defendant sought
to invalidate orders of the Superior Court, under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (D.I. 18, 19). Defendant
moves for reconsideration and appears to argue that this
Court has jurisdiction by reason of diversity under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 because Defendant is a member of the Moorish
National Republic. The filing also seems to attempt to raise
claims based upon the federal criminal code. It also refers
to various federal civil statutes.
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann,
Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
"A proper Rule 59(e) motion ... must rely on one of
three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,
669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). A
motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a
request that a court rethink a decision already made. See
Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp.
1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Motions for reargument or
reconsideration may not be used "as a means to argue new
facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the
court in the matter previously decided." Brambles
USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del.
1990). Reargument, however, may be appropriate where
"the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has
made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to
the court by the parties, or has made an error not of
reasoning but of apprehension." Brambles USA,
735 F.Supp. at 1241 (D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted);
See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
seems to rest his argument for reconsideration on diversity
of citizenship. As noted by other courts, an individual's
Moorish citizenship argument is a frivolous attempt to
establish diversity jurisdiction where none exits, and the
ploy is not new. See, e.g., Ingram El v. Crail, 2019
WL 3860192, at *3 (E.D. Calif. Aug. 16, 2019); Bey v.
Municipal Court, 2012 WL 714575 (D.N.J. Mar. 5, 2012
("Any claims or arguments raised by plaintiff which are
based on his membership in the Moorish American Nation are
[by definition] frivolous."). In addition, even if the
parties are diverse, Defendant cannot escape the fact the
Court must abstain under the Younger abstention
doctrine or that it may not set aside orders entered in State
court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
addition, to the extent Defendant attempts to raise new
claims, he may not do so. His remedy, if any, is to file a
separate and independent action. The Court further notes that
to the extent Defendant seeks to impose criminal liability
pursuant to the criminal statutes upon which he relies, he
lacks standing to proceed. See Allen v. Administrative
Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 270 Fed.Appx. 149, 150
(3d Cir. 2008); see United States v. Friedland, 83
F.3d 1531, 1539 (3d Cir. 1996) ("[T]he United States
Attorney is responsible for the prosecution of all criminal
cases within his or her district."). The decision of
whether to prosecute, and what criminal charges to bring,
generally rests with the prosecutor. See United States v.
Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124(1979).
review of the filings in the case, the Court concludes that
Defendant has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary
grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's
remand of this matter. Therefore, his motion for
reconsideration will be denied. (D.I. 22) Finally,
Defendant's recent "writ for good
consideration" construed as a motion for leave to amend
the notice of removal will be denied. (D.I. 24) Defendant
cannot obtain the relief he seeks in this Court.
above reasons, the Court will: (1) deny the motion for
reconsideration 22); and (2) deny the motion for leave ...