Gilberti v. Vance

• Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JOSEPH D. GILBERTI, Plaintiff,

vs. No. CIV 25-0139 JB/SCY VICE PRESIDENT JAMES DAVID VANCE, GEORGE W. BUSH, JUDGE DONNA MARIE PADAR, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, WORLD BANK GROUP (THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT (IBRD) AND THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (IDA)), NEW DEVELOPMENT BANK (BRICS BANKS), JAMES AMSCHEL VICTOR ROTHSCHILD, NICHOLAS DAVID ROTHSCHILD, LADY LYNN FORESTER DE ROTHSCHILD, "THE HOLY SEE" (THE VATICAN CITY STATE), DAVID MAYER DE ROTHSCHILD, ARCHDIOCESE OF VENICE, ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON, ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, ARCHDIOCESE OF LAS CRUCES, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF GALLUP, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE (NFL), NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION (NBA), MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL ATTORNEY (MLB), NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING (NASCAR), MARY ROSS AGOSTA, BARRON TRUMP, RYAN SNYDER, JUDGE STEPHEN WALKER, BLACKSTONE INC., STATE STREET CORPORATION, MORGAN STANLEY, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT INC., GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (JPMCB), JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., MELANIA TRUMP, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, EASTERN NEW MEXICO UNIVERSITY, NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING AND TECHNOLOGY, LARA TRUMP, US CONGRESSMAN VERN BUCHANAN, AL GORE, ERIC TRUMP, EMMA GONZALES, IVANKA TRUMP, ANDREW ROSIN PA, JUDGE HUNTER CARROLL, DONALD TRUMP JR., MARJORIE STONEMAN DOUGLAS SCHOOL, JUDGE OMAR A. WILLIAMS, GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL, SHERIFF SCOTT ISRAEL, JUDGE JAMES DOMINGUEZ, JUDGE CAROYLN DELANO, TOWN OF ROYAL PALM BEACH, PORT EVERGLADES, JUDGE JAMES CONRAD, JUDGE MARK WOLFE, PALM BEACH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, JUDGE KIMBERLY CARLTON BONNER, LEE PALLARDY, BROWARD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THOMAS HOWZE, NATIONAL SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, TOWN OF ROYAL BEACH, LEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, CITY OF BOCA RATON, CITY OF MIAMI, MIAMI PORT AUTHORITY, 12TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, SHERIFF CHAD CHRONISTER, SARASOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DADE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MANAGEMENT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT., U.S. CONGRESS, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE LUIS RIVERA, EDWARD J. DEBARTOLO, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, TAMPA CENTRAL COMMAND MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, METROPOLITAN PLANNING COUNCIL, MATT GAETZ, RICHARD BRUCE (DICK) CHENEY, JUDGE THOMAS KRUG, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), JEFF BEZOS, WARREN BUFFET, JUDGE MARIA RUHL, JUDGE DON T. HALL, JUDGE JAMES PARKER, SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, JUDGE DANA MOSS, JUDGE GEORGE A. O'TOOLE JR., SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, ROCKEFELLER GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., JUDGE MCHUGH, JUDGE DARRIN P. GAYLES, JUDGE JOSE E. MARTINEZ, JUDGE LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, ROCKEFELLER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, STATE ATTORNEY ED BRODSKY, JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN, TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, JUDGE CHARLES WILLIAMS, JUDGE THOMAS BARBER, CITY OF CAPE CORAL, CITY OF NAPLES, CITY OF FORT MYERS, JUDGE GEOFFREY R GENTILE, JUDGE MARTIN FEIN, SEMINOLE TRIBE HARD ROCK CASINO, JUDGE SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, JUDGE ELIZABETH SCHERER, CITY OF PARKLAND, DAVID HOGG, JUDGE LORENALIKHAN, MANATEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TOWN OF DAVY, NIKOLAS CRUZ, JUDGE MARTHA PACOLD, SHERIFF CARMINE MARCENO, SHERIFF KURT HOFFMAN, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, GREENBERG TRAURIG LAW, JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, JUDGE LIAM O' GRADY, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), MICHAEL WALTZ, JUDGE MADELINE COX ARLEO, ELON MUSK, SENATOR MARCO RUBIO, SUSIE WILES, JUDGE DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS, JUDGE DAVID S LEIBOWITZ, RUDY GIULIANI, YALE UNIVERSITY, RON DESANTIS, JUDGE AILEEN CANNON, ROCKEFELLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, DONALD J. TRUMP, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, ARIANA ROCKEFELLER, VALERIE ROCKEFELLER, ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES, ARCHDIOCESE OF BALTIMORE, STATE ATTORNEY THOMAS WIDEN, ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, POPE FRANCIS JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO ARCHDIOCESE OF NEWARK, ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON, NANCY PELOSI, HILLARY CLINTON, WILLIAM JEFFERSON (BILL) CLINTON, BARACK OBAMA, MICHELLE OBAMA, GOVERNOR JOSH SHAPIRO, GOVERNOR WES MOORE, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, KAMALA HARRIS, TIM WALTZ, PHILADELPHIA CITY COUNCIL, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, CHRISTOPHER SHAW, ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHLEY MOODY, US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, SHEILA SANGHVI, MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL, NEW YORK PORT AUTHORITY, WASHINGTON PUBLIC PORTS ASSOCIATION, SENATOR RICK SCOTT, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, THE WASHINGTON POST, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, CLEVELAND CITY COUNCIL, EXXONMOBIL, THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, SCOTT FREYRE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, THE U.S. SURGEON GENERAL, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT, US NATIONAL GUARD, HUMAN HEALTH AND SERVICES, PETE HEGSETH, KRISTI NOEM, JOHN RATCLIFFE, TUTSI GABBARD, LEE ZELDIN, ELISE STEFANIK, ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., DOUG BURGUM, DOUG COLLINS, CHRIS WRIGHT, JAMES BLAIR, TAYLOR BUDOWICH, STEPHEN MILLER, DAN SCAVINO, THOMAS HOMAN, BILL MCGINLEY, STEVEN CHEUNG, KAROLINE LEAVITT, WILL SCHARF, SERGIO GOR, VIVEK RAMASWAMY, BRENDAN CARR, HOWARD LUTNICK, LINDA MCMAHON, SEAN DUFFY, DEAN JOHN SAUER, TODD BLANCHE, STEVEN WITKOFF, MICHAEL HUCKABEE, MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, WINK NEWS, MOSAIC FERTILIZER, PFIZER PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY COMPANY, UNITED NATIONS, BILL GATES, MARK ZUCKERBERG, CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY, CSX TRANSPORTATION INC., BLACKROCK INC., US CONGRESSMAN BYRON DONALDS, ATTORNEY ALVIN BRAGG, AG LETITIA JAMES, BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL, ARCHDIOCESE OF INDIANAPOLIS, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (NYDEP), JUDGE PAUL DIAMOND, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY (DOGE), ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, WASHINGTON CITY COUNCIL, GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, GOVERNOR OF ALASKA, GOVERNOR OF ARIZONA, GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT, GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR OF HAWAII, GOVERNOR OF IDAHO, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, GOVERNOR OF INDIANA, GOVERNOR OF IOWA, GOVERNOR OF KANSAS, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, GOVERNOR OF MAINE, GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND, GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, GOVERNOR OF MISSOURI, GOVERNOR OF MONTANA, GOVERNOR OF NEBRASKA, GOVERNOR OF NEVADA, GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY, GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, GOVERNOR OF NORTH DAKOTA, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, GOVERNOR OF OKLAHOMA, GOVERNOR OF OREGON, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, GOVERNOR OF RHODE ISLAND, GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, GOVERNOR OF SOUTH DAKOTA, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, GOVERNOR OF UTAH, GOVERNOR OF VERMONT, GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON, GOVERNOR OF WEST VIRGINIA, GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN, GOVERNOR OF WYOMING, and THE PENTAGON. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed February 7, 2025 (Doc. 1)(“Complaint”). Plaintiff Joseph D. Gilberti appears pro se. For the reasons set out below, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice, because venue is improper in the District of New Mexico. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Gilberti, who resides in Florida, asserts various claims against about 250 Defendants based on actions that occurred in Florida regarding, among other things, water resources in Florida and

property in Florida. While some of the Defendants reside in New Mexico,1 the remainder of the Defendants reside in other States and countries. The Honorable Steven C. Yarbrough, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, notifies Gilberti: It appears that the District of New Mexico is not the proper venue for this action. The statute governing venue in general states:

Venue in general. --A civil action may be brought in--

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

1The Complaint names the following Defendants in New Mexico: the Archdioceses of Santa Fe and Las Cruces, the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, Eastern New Mexico University, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, the New Mexico Environment Department, Judge James Parker, and the Governor of New Mexico. See Complaint at 1-2. occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (emphasis added).

Factors considered in deciding whether a transfer is in the interests of justice include whether the claims would be barred by a statute of limitations if filed anew in the proper forum, E.g. Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1150 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1997)), whether the claims alleged are likely to have merit, E.g. Haugh, 210 F.3d at 1150 (citing Phillips, 173 F.3d at 610), and whether the claims were filed in good faith or if, on the other hand, it was clear at the time of filing that the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction, Trierweiler, 90 F.3d at 1544 (“[I]t is not in the interest of justice to transfer where a plaintiff either realized or should have realized that the forum in which he or she filed was improper.”).

Young v. State Government of Oklahoma, 98 Fed. Appx. 760, 763-764 (10th Cir. 2004).

The vast majority of Defendants do not reside in New Mexico. There are no allegations that the acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New Mexico. The subject property is situated in Florida. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for many of the Defendants because it does not explain what each Defendant did to Plaintiff, when each Defendant did it, and what specific legal right Plaintiff believes each Defendant violated. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated”). Furthermore, the Complaint does not contain factual allegations showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the nonresident Defendants. See Dental Dynamics, LLC v. Jolly Dental Group, LLC, 946 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff bears burden of establishing personal jurisdiction). Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Order to Show Cause at 2-4, filed February 12, 2025 (Doc. 4)(“Order”). Magistrate Judge Yarbrough orders Gilberti to: (i) show cause why the Court should not dismiss or transfer this case; and (ii) file an amended complaint. See Order at 5. Gilberti did not show cause or file an amended complaint by the March 5, 2025, deadline. Gilberti has not responded yet to the Order at the time the Court enters this Memorandum Opinion and Order. LAW REGARDING PRO SE LITIGANTS When a party proceeds pro se, a court construes his or her pleadings liberally, and holds them “to a less stringent standard than [that applied to] formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall

v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). “[I]f the Court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which [Plaintiff] could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1110. The Court, however, will not “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1110. “[P]ro se status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). ANALYSIS

Having carefully reviewed the Complaint, and the relevant law, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Venue is not proper in the District of New Mexico, because: (i) the vast majority of Defendants do not reside in New Mexico; (ii) there are no allegations that the acts and omissions giving rise to Gilberti’s claims occurred in New Mexico; and (iii) the subject property is situated in Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (“A civil action may be brought in--(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated”). It is not in the interest of Justice to transfer this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”). The Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted for many of the approximately 250 Defendants. See Young v. State Government of Oklahoma, 98 Fed. App’x 760, 763-764 (10th Cir. 2004)(“‘Factors considered in deciding whether a transfer is in the interests of justice include . . . whether the claims alleged are likely to have merit.”’). Magistrate Judge Yarbrough, after notifying Gilberti that it appears that the District of New Mexico 1s not the proper venue for this case, orders Gilberti to show cause why the Court should not dismiss or transfer this case, and to file an amended complaint. See Order at 5. The deadline to amend was March 5, 2024. See Order at 5. Gilberti does not show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case; nor does Gilberti file an amended complaint. The Court, therefore, dismisses this action. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. _

Parties: Joseph D. Gilberti Sarasota, Florida / Plaintiff pro se

-10-