Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Paul J. Maravelias, se
34 Mockingbird Hill Rd
Windham,NH 03087
(603)475-3305
paul@paulmarv.com 2013 HAY-b A 10= 2^
PAUL MARAVELIAS,
Plaintiff',
V.
Civil No. 1:19-CV-143(SM)
NOW COMES Paul Maravelias ("Plaintiff) and respectfully submits the within
Motion to Dismiss this case for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1)
'The instant pleading is timely filed on or before 5/6/19 as service of all opposing motions upon
Plaintiff was made by "mail" pmsuant to FRCP 5(b)(2)(C) triggering three(3)additional days
pursuant to FRCP 6(d) and,thenceforth, another continuation from Saturday 5/4/19 to 5/6/19
pursuant to FRCP 6(a)(1)(C) and LR 6.1.
-1 -
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 19 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 4
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Additionally, Defendant John J. Coughlin and the
responding separately.
3. Accordingly, the Court should deny the pending motions to dismiss as MOOT
and invite Defendants to renew said motions, if desired, in the responsive context ofthe
and the plaintiff later files an Amended Complaint, the amended pleading renders the
defendant's Motion to Dismiss moot." Onyiah v. St. Cloud State University,655 F. Supp. 2d
948(D. Minn. 2009)See also Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc., 434 F. Supp.
239(D. Del. 1992)(holding that an amended complaint renders a motion to dismiss the
original complaint moot)."[A]n amended complaint supersedes the original one rendering the
original complaint null and void." Vadas v. U.S., 527 F.3d 16, 19(2"'' Cir. 2007). See also
Pintando v. Miami-Bade Hous. Agency,501 F.3d 1241, 1243(11"* Cir. 2007)."Since the
amended complaint replaces the original complaint,the motions to dismiss the original
complaint are moot." Weiss v. Astella Pharma US, Inc., No. 5:05cv527, 2006 WL 1285406, at
*1 n. 1 (E.D. Ky. May 10,2006)(motions to dismiss the original complaint were moot
FRCP 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss under said doctrine, they ought to do so in a manner
-2-
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 19 Filed 05/06/19 Page 3 of 4
responsive to the Amended Complaint. See RockwellInt'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S.
amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction").
since the Amended Complaint likely narrows the arguments Defendants could renew for
dismissal. This avoids urmecessary adjudication ofissues. See e.g. In re K-Dur Antitrust
complaint if said complaint contains the same legal flaw as the original,^ the new portions of
the Amended Complaint here are pointedly responsive to Defendants' arguments vmder the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
7. Plaintiff anticipates that Defendants might renew the joint motion to dismiss
undue burden upon Plaintiffif compelled pointlessly to furnish a full legal memorandum on
this issue before any non-moot motion to dismiss has been filed, especially as Plaintiff
appears pro se and works a full-time occupation. Should Defendants renew their motion(s)to
dismiss. Plaintiff will have 14 days pursuant to the Court's rules to file a follow-up Objection.
See e.g. Cureton v. U.S. Marshal Serv., 322 F. Supp. 2d 23,25 n.6(D.D.C. 2004)
-3-
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 19 Filed 05/06/19 Page 4 of 4
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,
in propria persona
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Paul Maravelias, certify that a timely provided copy ofthis document is being sent on
this date to all counsel ofrecord for the Defendants pursuant to the rules ofthis Court.
-4-
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 21 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 5
Paul J. Maravelias,/?ro se
34 Mockingbird Hill Rd
Windham,NH 03087
(603)475-3305
paul@paulmarv.com 2019 HAY -b A iO: 21
PAUL MARAVELIAS,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil No. 1:19-CV-143(SM)
NOW COMES Paul Maravelias ("Plaintiff) and respectfully Objects to the Motion to
Dismiss filed by the Town of Windham,ex rel. Windham Police Department, and Gerald S.
Defendant Gordon J. MacDonald's FRCP 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss and separately on the
-1 -
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 21 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 5
Brief Statement of Defenses in response to the Original Complaint. See ECF Doc.#8.
3. A Rule 12(b) Motion filed after the Answer is untimely. Jones v. Greninger, 188
F.3d 322, 326 (5'** Cir. 1999). The Windham Defendants' motion asserts the Rule 12(b)(1)
defense oflack ofsubject matter jurisdiction. However,"[a] motion asserting any ofthese
defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed." Fed. R. ofCiv.
Proa., 12(b). For tMs reason alone, the untimely Motion should be denied.^'
said flawed assertion that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. If Windham Defendants maintain
this argument,they may renew the Motion to Dismiss in response to the Amended Complaint.
in conjunction with the Original Complaint, now a nullity. Standing is a core component of
Article Ill's case-and-controversy limitation. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
'Plaintiff hereby notices and preserves his right to move for sanctions, if necessary, against the
Windham Defendants under FRCP 11(b)in connection with the purposes imderlying their act of
filing an untimely Rule 12(b) Motion.
-2-
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 21 Filed 05/06/19 Page 3 of 5
560(1992)(citation omitted). "Article III standing imposes three fairly strict requirements."
People to End Homelessness, Inc. v. Develco Singles Apartments Assocs., 339 F.3d 1, 8(P'
Cir. 2003)."The Supreme Court has explained that the 'irreducible constitutional minimum'
ofstanding under Article III consists ofthree elements: an actual or imminent injury,
causation, and redressability." Hollywood Mobile Estates Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe ofFla., 641
8^. Here, the Windham Defendants challenge only the first element: the existence of
an actual or imminent injury. Plaintiffs Original Complaint doubtlessly alleges the "real and
immediate" threat of unlawful prosecution because it alleges Sgt. Smith will arrest Maravelias
for the lawful, constitutionally protected conduct of violating the "social media possession"
"extended terms" if Sgt. Smith fails to establish the Supreme Court exhibit in question was
not part of an earlier court case. See ECF Doc. #2, Attachment(1),"Declaration in Support",
1(15-31.
9. The Windham Defendants' very Answer reconfirms this imminent, real, and
unabated enforcement threat. See Answer. ECF Doc. #8,1(83, 92,97, 109, 118.
10. While it would not be "sufficiently real and immediate to show an existing
controversy simply because [one] anticipate[s] violating lawful criminal statutes and being
tried for [their] offenses"(emphasis added). City ofLos Angeles v. Lyons,461 U.S. 95(1983),
the threatened enforcement here - as alleged-is not "lawful".^ See generally. Original
Complaint.
-3-
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD,WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 21 Filed 05/06/19 Page 4 of 5
favorable adjudication ofthe legal merits ofthis action (to wit, that the threatened
enforcement is "lawful") and is thus misplaced for purposes ofa Rule 12(b) Motion to
Dismiss."If... law enforcement personnel cannot be proceeded against for declaratory relief,
putative plaintiffs would have to await the institution ofstate [criminal] proceedings against
them in order to assert their federal constitutional claims. This is not the way the law has
(against which he also brings a facial challenge)is currently chilling his First-Amendment-
U.S. 488(1974), a distinguishable suit which held that no justiciable case or controversy
existed "in the absence of allegations that unconstitutional [statutes][were] being employed to
deter constitutionally protected conduct"(emphasis added) unlike this case, and where
"respondents [had] not pointed to any imminent prosecutions contemplated against them"
13. Accordingly, since the Court's present inquiry is not factual and must "accept
well-pled factual averments as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe
[plaintiff]", Rubin v. Smith, 817 F. Supp. 987(D.N.H. 1993), the Windham Defendants' Rule
conduct that both violates the provisions ofthe order and is listed in paragraph 11(a)".(Emphasis
added)."Possession" appears nowhere in the enumerations of RSA 633:3-a, 11(a), an exclusive
listing for purposes ofthe criminal enforcement statute. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint more
fully develops this facet of Defendant's real and immediate threats in excess oflegal authority.
-4-
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 21 Filed 05/06/19 Page 5 of 5
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL J. MARAVELIAS,
in propria persona
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Paul Maravelias, certify that a timely provided copy ofthis document is being sent on
this date to all counsel ofrecord for the Defendants pursuant to the rules ofthis Court.
-5-
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD,WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 20 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 3
Paul J. Maravelias,j!7rc> se
34 Mockingbird Hill Rd
Windham,NH 03087
(603)475-3305 28i3HAY-b A 10 2^
paul@paulmarv.com
PAUL MARAVELIAS,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil No. 1:19-CV-143(SM)
John J. Coughlin's 4/17/19 Motion to Dismiss and,in further support, states as follows:
Defendant Gordon J. MacDonald's FRCP 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss and separately moves
for dismissal under FRCP 12(b)(6) claiming entitlement to absolute judicial immunity.
-1 -
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 20 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 3
said flawed claim to absolute judicial immunity. If Defendant Coughlin maintains this
argument, he may renew the Motion to Dismiss in response to the Amended Complaint.
law. It is well-established thatjudicial immunity does not extend to claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief under §1983.See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522(1984). The doctrine of
judicial immunity shields against claims for punitive money damages only, which Plaintiff
does not seek in the instant action."[W]e have never held thatjudicial immunity absolutely
insulates judges from declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to their judicial acts."
6. Judicial immimity would not apply even if money damages were,in fact, sought.
A constmction ofthe Original Complaint's allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff
reasonably infers that Judge Coughlin acted in complete absence ofjurisdiction through an act
not "judicial" in nature. Plaintiff need not further develop this argument unless and until
Defendant Coughlin renews the Motion to Dismiss in response to the Amended Complaint.
-2-
PAUL MARAVELIAS - 34 MOCKINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087
Case 1:19-cv-00143-SM Document 20 Filed 05/06/19 Page 3 of 3
PAUL J. MARAVELIAS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Paul Maravelias, certify that a timely provided copy ofthis document is being sent on
this date to all counsel of record for the Defendants pursuant to the rules ofthis Court.
-3 -
PAUL MAILWELIAS - 34 MOCfCINGBIRD HILL RD, WINDHAM,NH 03087