Opinion
Civil Action No. MC-09-831 (DGT).
January 13, 2010
ORDER
By Order dated April 23, 2004, this Court enjoined Israel Valle from filing any new civil action, seeking in forma pauperis status, without obtaining prior leave of court. See Valle v. State of New York, CV-04-665 (DGT). On December 30, 2009, Valle sought leave to file two separate actions along with applications to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel.
On December 28, 2009, Valle sought leave to file a similar action against state court judges. That application was denied.See Valle v. State of New York, et al., No. MC-09-825 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2010).
Leave to File Denied
The instant submissions continue Valle's pattern of vexatious litigation. Since this Court has denied Valle's repeated attempts to file frivolous actions — Valle's litigation history is listed below — he now turns his attention to the New York State courts. In each proposed action, plaintiff alleges that numerous state court judges are involved in a criminal enterprise. Accordingly, Valle's motion for leave to file these two actions are DENIED. Similar to his previous submissions, these actions are improper and frivolous in that they lack any basis in law or in fact. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); In re Martin Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir. 1993).
Litigation History
Since the filing injunction was entered in 2004, Valle has remained undeterred. He has continued to file motions for leave to file — what the Court has repeatedly concluded are — frivolous complaints. In 2005, Mr. Valle sought leave to file five actions. See Valle v. State of New York, MC-05-111 (DGT);Valle v. United States, MC-05-112 (DGT); Valle v. United States, MC-05-113 (DGT); Valle v. YMCA, MC-05-227 (DGT); Valle v. State of New York, MC-05-243 (DGT). In 2006, Mr. Valle sought leave to file two actions. See Valle v. United States, MC-06-348 (DGT); Valle v. United States, MC-06-442 (DGT). In 2008, Mr. Valle sought leave to file a total of nine actions. Valle v. United States, MC-08-214 (DGT); Valle v. United States, MC-08-215 (DGT); Valle v. United States, MC-08-361 (DGT);Valle v. United States, MC-08-382 (DGT); Valle v. United States, MC-08-464 (DGT); Valle v. United States, MC-08-465 (DGT); Valle v. United States, MC-08-530 (DGT); Valle v. United States, MC-08-567 (DGT); Valle v. United States, MC-08-604 (DGT). In 2009, Mr. Valle sought leave to file four actions, including the instant two submissions. Valle v. United States, MC-09-65 (DGT);Valle v. State of New York, MC-09-825 (DGT).
Sanctions
Conclusion
11See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.501 U.S. 3242-52pro se Shahid v. Ridgewood-Bushwick Senior Citizen's Council2005 WL 1009549Golub v. Univ. of Chicago1992 WL 333641Daniel v. Safir135 F.Supp.2d 36737911See Valle v. United States Valle v. State of New York
Furthermore, Valle is hereby directed to show cause within 20 days why an order directing him to pay to the Clerk of Court $1,500 before filing any new civil action should not be entered.See, e.g., Malley v. Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, 9 Fed. Appx. 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2001) (affirming imposition of $1,500 sanction on pro se litigant).
If Valle fails to respond to this order within the time allowed or show good cause why the sanction should not be entered, the Court shall enter an order directing the Clerk of Court to return to Valle any new civil action that is not accompanied by the payment of $1,500 sanction to the Clerk of Court, Eastern District of New York. A copy of the Clerk's Office receipt reflecting payment of $1,500 made payable to the Clerk of Court must be attached to any new civil action, along with a request for leave to file. No action will be taken on any new civil action should plaintiff fail to comply with this procedure. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.