Tajimier v. Montclair State University

── Tajimier v. Montclair State University ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2581 ___________ TAJIMIER, Appellant v. MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY; CHRIS TRAUTMAN, Montclair State University Conduct Office; MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY CONDUCT DEPARTMENT; MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; YOLANDA ALVAEREZ; MARGAREE COLEMAN-CARTER; FATIMA DECARVAHLO; KERA MCANDREW; MICHAEL PALAZZOLO; JOHN DOES 1-10, MSU Staff & Administration ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-02024) District Judge: Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 7, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, RESTREPO, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed April 16, 2026) _________ OPINION* * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  _________ PER CURIAM The plaintiff and appellant in this matter, who has gone by the sole name Tajimier in this litigation,1 appeals from orders entering a filing injunction against him and denying his request for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). We will affirm. I. Tajimier filed a complaint pro se raising matters concerning his time as a student at Montclair State University, including his suspension from a recreation center and the performance of a wellness check apparently occasioned by his communications with staff. Tajimier then began to inundate the District Court with sovereign-citizen-like filings, some of which he styled as more complaints. In response to these filings, the court advised Tajimier that it was unable to properly screen his complaint as required by its grant of in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Thus, the court struck Tajimier’s filings and ordered him to file a single, consolidated complaint in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. (ECF No. 17.) Tajimier then filed what he styled as a “final consolidated federal complaint.” (ECF No. 18.) The court screened that complaint and dismissed it without prejudice. (ECF No. 28.) The court explained that Tajimier’s consolidated complaint did not contain any factual allegations and instead consisted of references to stricken documents and conclusory demands for relief. The court gave Tajimier 14 days to file an amended 1 Tajimier sometimes more fully identifies himself as “Tajimier—a private sovereign citizen and principal director of Tajimier, Inc.” 2 complaint that cured these defects under penalty of dismissal with prejudice. When the court did not receive an amended complaint within that time, it dismissed the complaint with prejudice and closed the case. (ECF No. 34.) Tajimier—who had continued to inundate the court with filings—then filed motions properly construed as seeking reconsideration under Rule 59(e). (ECF Nos. 35 & 39.) In those filings, Tajimier advised the court that he had indeed submitted an amended complaint at ECF. No. 36-1 (as an attachment to a document titled “formal notice of defa