In Re: Misbah Abdul-Kareem
- Susan Nelson
- 0:18-cv-02923
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In re Misbah Abdul-Kareem, Judge Nelson denied a motion to continue because it still did not show a legal controversy, standing, or requested relief.
Misbah Abdul-Kareem; his motion to continue was denied after the action had already been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
What happened
In re: Misbah Abdul-Kareem had already been dismissed because the court found no legal controversy, and judgment had been entered.
Abdul-Kareem then filed a one-page motion seeking to continue the case and restate the defendant while providing more information about his “Money Project.” The motion did not explain how he had the right to bring the case or what relief he wanted from the court.
The court denied the motion to continue because federal courts may decide only actual cases and controversies, and the motion still did not establish one. Judge Susan Richard Nelson signed the March 5, 2019 order.
The detailed version
- In Re: Misbah Abdul-Kareem · No. 0:18-cv-02923
- Susan Nelson
- Mar. 5, 2019
Background
The court had dismissed this action on November 27, 2018, for lack of jurisdiction and had entered judgment. The court had adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the presumed complaint—titled “A sworn and written statement in regards to my Money Project of 2017”—failed to state a legal controversy.
Motion
On December 4, 2018, the court received Abdul-Kareem’s one-page “Motion to Continue,” titled “To Continue and also Re-State the Defendant while explaining my Legal ‘Controversy.’” Abdul-Kareem supplied additional information about his “Money Project,” but the court found that he still did not explain how he had standing to bring the action or what relief he sought.
Ruling
The court stated that Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to resolving actual cases and controversies. Because the motion did not establish a legal controversy, standing, or requested relief, the court denied the Motion to Continue. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.