United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO AMEND AND TO REMOVE AN ACTION FROM STATE COURT
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Mohan Harihar (“Harihar”), proceeding pro
se, initiated this action on May 20, 2015. [ECF No. 1].
Harihar amended his complaint twice, first in June 2015 and
again in November 2015. [ECF Nos. 6, 24]. His 71-page amended
complaint was accompanied by more than 1800 pages of
attachments, and although the factual allegations were
somewhat unclear, the essence of his claims was that U.S.
Bank unlawfully foreclosed on his home in Lowell,
Massachusetts and that several individuals and entities
subsequently concealed the illegality of that foreclosure.
See generally [ECF No. 24]. Based on those
allegations, Harihar brought seventeen counts, including
claims for racketeering, copyright infringement, violations
of constitutional rights, and unfair and deceptive practices,
against two banks, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and
several individuals and law firms. See [ECF No. 24
April 2016, the Court dismissed several of the counts. [ECF
No. 43]. Harihar sought to further amend his complaint, but
the Court denied those requests because it found that the
proposed amendments were futile and would have been unduly
prejudicial to the Defendants. [ECF Nos. 81, 116, 118, 125].
The Court also denied multiple requests for injunctive
relief. [ECF Nos. 120, 133]. Harihar responded to these
adverse decisions by filing motions for the Court's
recusal, asserting that he was the victim of a massive
government conspiracy, and requesting fees and costs from the
government. See [ECF Nos. 121, 123, 124, 126, 127,
128, 131, 134, 135, 138]. On March 31, 2017, the Court
dismissed the remaining counts with prejudice. [ECF No. 139].
On January 17, 2018, the Court's decision was affirmed by
the First Circuit, and on April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court
denied Harihar's petition for a writ of certiorari.
See [ECF Nos. 149, 154]. As of April 15, 2019, this
action had run its full and complete course within the
federal judicial system.
25, 2019, notwithstanding the conclusion of this action and
Harihar's previous allegations that the Court had
committed “Treason to the Constitution” and
engaged in a “PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT” that
resulted in an abuse of justice so extensive that
“MENTAL ILLNESS - should not be ruled out, ” [ECF
No. 148 at 4, 7-8], Harihar filed an emergency motion to
amend the complaint and remove an action from Massachusetts
Superior Court to this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and 60(b)(4) and 28 U.S.C. §
1446. [ECF No. 155, 156]. Rule 60(b) provides that
“[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for . . . fraud (whether previously
called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party [or because] the judgment is
void.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 28 U.S.C. § 1446
provides, in relevant part:
A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action
from a State court shall file in the district court of the
United States for the district and division within which such
action is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a
short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,
together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders
served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).
motion is denied for eight reasons. First, to the extent he
contends that the Massachusetts courts have violated Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60, he fails to state a valid basis
for relief because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do
not apply to proceedings in Massachusetts state courts.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (“These rules govern the
procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the
United States district courts, except as stated in Rule
81.” (emphasis added)). Second, to the extent Harihar
seeks relief from the dismissal of this action, his remedy
was to appeal the Court's order. He has now exhausted his
rights to appeal without success. Third, Harihar has not
properly removed the action from state court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1446 because he has not provided a “short
and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28
U.S.C. § 1446(a). Fourth, Harihar has failed to complete
a JS 44 and to file the notice of removal with the clerk as
required to initiate a removed action in this Court.
See L.R., D. Mass. 3.1. Fifth, Harihar appears to be
the plaintiff in the Massachusetts action he seeks to remove,
but 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446(a) provide for
removal by defendants only. Sixth, Harihar's attempt to
remove the action now pending in state court is almost
certainly untimely given that he represents that his motions
in state court have been pending for more than a month,
whereas 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) requires that any
“notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding
shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the
defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the
initial pleading.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
Seventh, to the extent Harihar seeks to amend his complaint
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, his
motion is denied for the reasons the Court has previously
articulated in denying Harihar's motions to amend.
See [ECF No. 81, 103, 116, 125]. Eighth, because
this action terminated on March 31, 2017 when the Court
dismissed all claims with prejudice, even if the state court
case could be removed to this Court, it would not be related
to this action because more than two years have elapsed since
this action was closed. See L.R., D. Mass.
emergency motion to amend his original complaint and to
remove an action from state court [ECF Nos. 155, 156] is
DENIED. Considering that this
action has been fully litigated and has now been closed for
more than two years, Harihar shall make no further filings on
this docket or any other filing with this Court that purports
to be related to this action.
 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
81(c), the rules apply to actions that have been removed from
state courts but only after the ...