govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_26-cv-00189-1

1 
 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
 
JULIET A. ROGERS, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
NEURALINK CORPORATION, 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 
 
Civil Action No. 26-00189 (SDW) (AME) 
 
 
WHEREAS OPINION & ORDER 
 
 
June 18, 2026 
 
WIGENTON, District Judge. 
 
THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Juliet A. Rogers’s 
(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Reopen the Case (D.E. 15); and 
WHEREAS on January 9, 2026, pro se Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court against 
Defendant Neuralink Corporation. (D.E. 1.) On April 20, 2026, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 
Complaint with prejudice. (D.E. 12.) This Court found that res judicata bar red Plaintiff’s 
Complaint because its underlying claims and allegations we re the same as the claims filed in the 
state court action, which were found to be frivolous and dismissed with prejudice . Id. 
Additionally, this Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint could not survive a Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 12(b)(g) motion to dismiss and failed to comply with the Rule 8 pleading standards 1; 
and 
 
1 This Court further notes that any additional attempts by Plaintiff to amend the pleadings would have been futile given 
the frivolous nature of Plaintiff’s claims. PageID:
<pageID>
2 
 
WHEREAS Plaintiff now seeks to reopen this Complaint. (D.E. 15.) A motion to reopen 
a case which has been closed by way of dipositive motion is effectively a motion pursuant to Rule 
60(b)(6) for this Court to grant relief from a final judgment. See Pabon v. Lemaster , 408 Fed. 
Appx. 508, 509 (3d Cir. 2010). “Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, 
and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances....” Gonzalez v. Crosby , 
545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). A movant seeking relief under the rule must “show extraordinary 
circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Id. at 535. Such a motion will be 
denied unless the movant shows “that without relief from the judgment, an extreme and unexpected 
hardship will result.” Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 255 (3d Cir. 2008). 
WHEREAS Plaintiff fails to satisfy Rule 60(b)(6)’s “extraordinary circumstances” 
requirement and does not plausibly demonstrate that an extreme and unexpected hardship would 
result if her motion were not granted. Instead, Plaintiff simply realleges the same disjointed and 
fantastical claims this Court previously dismissed. Plaintiff’s claims are plainly meritless and fails 
to establish any legal or factual support for a Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 
Motion to Reopen this Case is denied, and this matter shall remain closed2; and 
WHEREAS this Court also warns Plaintiff that the further filing of frivolous litigation 
may result in an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), barring her from filing new actions without prior 
permission. This warning is necessary, in light of Plaintiff's numerous filings, to conserve this 
Court's judicial resources; therefore 
IT IS, on this 18th day of June 2026, 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen this Case under Rule 60(b)(6) is DENIED; 
and it is further 
 
2 For this reason, Plaintiff ’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order (D.E. 18) is al so 
denied. PageID:
<pageID>
3 
 
ORDERED that this matter shall remain closed. 
SO ORDERED. 
 
 /s/ Susan D. Wigenton 
 SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J. 
 
 
 
Orig: Clerk 
cc: Parties 
 André M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J. PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight