In Re :Charlesetta O'Neal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x

In re CHARLESETTA O’NEAL,

Debtor. MEMORANDUM & ORDER

20-CV-4060(EK)

CHARLESETTA O’NEAL,

Appellant,

-against-

MARIANNE DEROSA,

Appellee.

------------------------------------x

ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

Pro se appellant Charlesetta O’Neal has filed a

“Motion for Void Judgment” seeking “Relief from Judgment/Order.”

ECF No. 28. Because O’Neal cites Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b), I construe the filing as a second motion for

reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, that motion

is denied.

I. Background

Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Strong dismissed O’Neal’s

Chapter 13 case following her failure to file a written

opposition to the trustee’s motion to dismiss, among other

reasons. Order Dismissing Case, ECF No. 1-2. O’Neal appealed

that decision to this Court but did not pay the required filing

fee. I advised Appellant to complete an in forma pauperis

application or pay the filing fee, and warned that her appeal

would otherwise be dismissed. Order Dated June 29, 2021.

Appellant did neither of those things, and I dismissed the case.

Order Dated August 17, 2021.

O’Neal then filed a letter seeking to “vacate void

order[] and recuse.” ECF No. 26. I construed the letter as a

motion (1) for reconsideration of my order dismissing her appeal

of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, and (2) to disqualify me

from continuing to preside over this case; in an order dated

December 15, 2021, I denied those requests. Memorandum & Order,

ECF No. 27.

II. Discussion

Because Rule 60(b) “allows extraordinary judicial

relief, it is invoked only upon a showing of exceptional

circumstances.” Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir.

1986); see also Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191

(2d Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b) is “a mechanism for extraordinary

judicial relief invoked only if the moving party demonstrates

exceptional circumstances”).1

As with her first motion for reconsideration, O’Neal

makes no non-frivolous argument in support of reopening her

1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order

accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal

quotation marks.

case. Rather, she alleges that she is a “Moorish American

National[]” and proffers various sovereign-citizen-type

arguments common to litigants who so identify. Mot. to Void

Judgment ¶¶ 1, 16–27. Such arguments have been rejected by

numerous federal courts. See Bey v. Brown, No. 21-CV-1072, 2021

WL 3836818, at *2–3 (D. Conn. Aug. 24, 2021) (collecting cases).

As the Second Circuit has explained, “[t]he sovereign citizens

are a loosely affiliated group who believe that the state and

federal governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore

have no authority to regulate their behavior.” United States v.

Ulloa, 511 F. App’x 105, n.1 (2d Cir. 2013). They seek to

“delay proceedings” by “raising numerous — often frivolous —

arguments, many alleging that the Courts or the Constitution

lack any authority whatsoever.” United States v. McLaughlin,

949 F.3d 780, 781 (2d Cir. 2019).

Here, for instance, O’Neal states that the Court’s

order should be vacated because the Court lacks jurisdiction for

various reasons, such as that the Order was “made by a kangaroo

non-jury trial” and was “un-signed with no signature” by the

Court. Mot. to Void Judgment ¶¶ 16–27. These arguments are

without merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (no jury trial in a

bankruptcy appeal); Memorandum & Order (signed by the

undersigned). Moreover, to the extent O’Neal claims this Court

has no subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, see Mot. to

Void Judgment ¶ 27, dismissal is the appropriate remedy. See,

e.g., Sam & Mary Hous. Corp. v. New York State, 632 F. Supp.

1448, 1452 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

O’Neal also avers that this Court is a corporation or

a foreign agent or that the Court has not produced a “valid

binding and legitimate oath of office.” Mot. to Void Judgment

¶ 28; Judicial Notice Mem. 3–6, ECF No. 28-1. These arguments

are also frivolous. See United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028,

1041 (6th Cir. 2007) (federal law does not require “that a

district judge demonstrate to the satisfaction of a litigant in

a particular case that he or she has taken the oath”); Miller v.

Doe, No. 20-CV-930, 2020 WL 4616322, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 23,

2020) (similar “allegations of that of a sovereign citizen” may

be “dismissed as frivolous”).

Finally, O’Neal has filed what purports to be an in

forma pauperis application; however, she either crosses out,

does not answer, or writes “SEE ATATCHMENT” in response to each

question. Application to Proceed in District Court Without

Prepaying Fees or Costs 1–2, ECF No. 28-2. She attaches a

“Motion in the Form of Affidavit to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,”

ECF No. 28-3, but alleges that she has no assets because she has

“no gold or silver.” Id. ¶ 6. Such an affidavit fails to

satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Brown, 2021

WL 3836818, at *2–3; see also El Ameen Bey v. Stumpf, 825 F.

Supp. 2d 537, 551 (D.N.J. 2011) (“The . . . ‘averment’ that

Plaintiffs possess no ‘gold or silver coins’ changes nothing for

the purposes of [an in forma pauperis] analysis, since such

fact, even if true, does not indicate that Plaintiffs do not

have assets within the meaning of Section 1915(a).”).

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, O’Neal’s motion is denied. O’Neal

is warned that continued filing of similar submissions will

result in an order directing the Clerk of Court not to accept

any letters or motions, other than a notice of appeal, under

this docket number. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith,

therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of

any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee__________

ERIC KOMITEE

United States District Judge

Dated: August 31, 2022

Brooklyn, New York