THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, V. 3:17-CV-2357 (JUDGE MARIANI) ANTONELLO BOLDRINI, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before this Court on a Notice of Removal filed by Defendant

Boldrini which sought to bring a state court foreclosure action into federal court. (Doc. 1).

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association filed a Motion for

Remand. (Doc. 7). Magistrate Judge Carlson thereafter issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be granted. (Doc. 12).

This Court, on September 11, 2018, adopted the R&R and remanded the action to the Court

of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, PA. (Doc. 87). That same day, this Court further

ruled upon a number of miscellaneous motions filed by Defendant. (See Docs. 85, 86). On September 21, 2018, Defendant filed a “Motion for Relief from Orders [ ] Pursuant to FRCP Rule 60° (Doc. 88). However, on October 11, 2018, Defendant filed a

Notice of Appeal of the aforementioned September 11, 2018 Orders by the Court. (Doc. 93). By Order dated September 11, 2019, the Third Circuit dismissed Boldrini’s appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.

Defendant’s “Motion for Relief from Orders [ ] Pursuant to FRCP Rule 60” (Doc. 88)

seeks relief from a number of Orders by this Court, dating back to December of 2017.

Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court vacate the following Orders:

1. Magistrate Judge Carlson's December 21, 2017, Order granting Boldrini’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ordering that a copy of the filing be served upon counsel for the plaintiff in the underlying state court action, and directing the state

court plaintiff to file a motion to remand the action if it believes that the “Notice of

Removal is procedurally or substantively flawed”. (Doc. 3). 2. Magistrate Judge Carlson's R&R, dated January 9, 2018, recommending that

Plaintiff's Motion to Remand be granted. (Doc. 12). 3. This Court’s Order granting Boldrini an extension of time to file objections to the R&R

but denying Boldrini’s request that the R&R be deemed moot. (Doc. 31). 4. This Court’s Order granting Boldrini an extension of time to file a brief in support of

his motion “to strike lawyer appearance” and “access to this federal court’. (Doc. 40).

5. This Court's Order granting Boldrini a second extension to file objections to the R&R and

directing Boldrini not to file any further documents, with the exception of his objections, pending the Third Circuit's disposition of his then-pending appeal. (Doc. 53). 6. The Court's Order denying Boldrini’s motion for Magistrate Judge Carlson's recusal.

(Doc. 85). 7. The Court’s Order adjudicating several miscellaneous motions filed by Boldrini. (Doc. 86).

8. The Court’s Order adopting the R&R and remanding this action to the Court of

Common Pleas of Luzerne County. (Doc. 87). (See Doc. 88). Defendant asserts that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4), and (d)(3). Subsections (3) and (4) of Rule 60(b) permit a court to relieve a party “froma

final judgment, order, or proceeding” on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct

by an opposing party, or if the judgment is void. Subsection (3) of Rule 60(d) provides that

Rule 60 does not limit a court’s power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. The

Third Circuit has set forth a “demanding standard of proof [ ] to demonstrate fraud upon the

court including (1) an intentional fraud; (2) by an officer of the court, (3) which is directed at

the court itself: and (4) in fact deceives the court.” Gillespie v. Janey, 527 F.App’x 120, at

122 (citing Herring v. United States,

(3d Cir. 2005)). In this case, Boldrini’s motion and accompanying brief (Docs. 88, 91) are devoid of

support that would justify vacating any of the Court's prior Orders. Boldrini’s arguments are

often unintelligible and lack any factual or legal support. Defendant has not presented any

evidence, or lucid arguments, to demonstrate that any fraud occurred by opposing counsel

or that this Court was in any way deceived by any of counsel's filings. Instead, Boldrini

expends a great deal of effort rearguing many of the assertions he raised in his prior motions upon which the Court ruled, while also attacking the magistrate judge and district

court opinions and orders that rejected those claims.

In arguing that the Court should vacate its prior Orders, Boldrini also remarkably repeatedly asserts that this action was never properly before this Court as it was never

properly removed by him. (See e.g., Doc. 91, at 15). However, Boldrinis filings throughout this action in federal court have been attempts to convince this Court that the action was

properly removed by him and should remain in federal court. It was this Court which

deemed the removal improper and remanded the case to state court. Boldrini’s assertion

that this Court’s Orders resolving Boldrini’s own multiplicitous filings, which necessitated

resolution prior to deciding whether the action should be remanded, is without any merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Boldrini’s “Motion for Relief from

Orders [ ] Pursuant to FRCP Rule 60” (Doc. 88). A separate Order follows.

/\ ~ (\, AYU MMM) RoberD_Mériani United States District Judge