Opinion
A-1524-21
02-15-2023
IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD HONE.
Richard Hone, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Argued February 1, 2023
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-1803-20.
Richard Hone, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Before Judges Vernoia and Natali.
PER CURIAM
I.
In this appeal, pro se appellant Richard Hone challenges a December 13, 2021 order entered by Assignment Judge Marlene Lynch Ford finding him to be a vexatious litigant and restraining him from making further filings without court approval. We affirm.
As discussed in greater detail, infra at p. 11, the record before us is scant solely as a result of appellant's failure to include in the appendix relevant orders and other materials addressing the issues presented. We were nevertheless able to discern the following facts from Judge Lynch Ford's April 14, 2022 supplemental submission filed pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(d), along with other filed and referenced orders to which we take judicial notice. See N.J.R.E. 201(b)(4) (stating a court may take judicial notice of "records of the court in which the action is pending").
Appellant and Neven Tadros had a child together in January 2015. Tadros was granted custody of the parties' child and appellant has since attempted to have the custody arrangement modified. Along the way, he has filed dozens of complaints in state and federal court, many of them dismissed for lack of prosecution and others on immunity grounds, against various state entities and officials connected to his custody matter, in addition to the voluminous filings he made in the custody matter itself.
We observe in the matter of Hone v. Ford, No. 20-10367 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2021) (slip op. at 1), the United States District Court of New Jersey has also restrained appellant from filing complaints, or any other filings, without the court's permission regarding his claims of Judge Lynch Ford's alleged judicial misconduct as related to his family court proceedings. Id. at 1-2.
Against that backdrop, on August 21, 2020, Judge Lynch Ford, then assignment judge for Ocean County, moved sua sponte under Docket No. OCN- L-1803-20 to consider whether restraints should be imposed on appellant as a vexatious litigant pursuant to Rosenblum v. Borough of Closter, 333 N.J.Super. 385 (App. Div. 2000). Following a hearing on the matter, she issued an order finding appellant had unfairly burdened the court system with a flood of frivolous civil suits and had been verbally abusive to court staff, restraining orders had been ineffective in curtailing his behavior, and monetary sanctions would likely prove equally futile in light of his indigency status. Consequently, she ordered that his pending or future civil filings in any vicinage be reviewed by the assignment judge for that vicinage, prior to service on any party, for a preliminary determination as to whether they should be dismissed as frivolous.
Judge Lynch Ford has since retired as of February 1, 2023.
She issued a thorough September 21, 2020 written opinion further explaining her decision under the Rosenblum test. Id. at 392-97. The judge first evaluated the volume and disposition of appellant's filings and determined his filings in over forty cases over the course of three years were frivolous, and specifically highlighted appellant's naming of judges, judicial secretaries, law clerks, and administrative staff as defendants as support for her finding.
The judge further determined the imposition of more traditional sanctions for frivolous litigation would not deter appellant, as evidenced by both his "history of repetitious and frivolous filings" and his threats to the court of prosecution and incarceration. Judge Lynch Ford determined appellant's behavior illustrated a "clear intent" to act in "bad faith, for purposes of harassment and not for purposes of adjudicating a legal right or claim." The judge further found appellant's filings against judges and judicial staff were an attempt to manipulate the judicial process in an effort to seek recusal of the assigned judges and a change of venue.
Judge Lynch Ford refused to recuse herself or grant appellant's request for a change of venue and reasoned such actions would be an "exercise in futility" as it would be nonsensical to "allow [appellant] to further abuse the process and to act in bad faith as is reflected by his litigation history...." Regarding appellant's future filings, Judge Lynch Ford explained each new complaint by appellant would be reviewed, and appellant would be permitted to pursue any legitimate claims regardless of his history of abusive and vexatious litigation. Appellant did not appeal from the August 21, 2020 order.
Nonetheless, over the course of 2021, appellant submitted more than five hundred documents through the Judiciary Electronic Document Submission (JEDS) system, largely seeking to relitigate issues that had already been decided. Due to the volume of what she deemed to be frivolous filings in the custody action in particular, and the evident ineffectiveness of the existing restraints, Judge Lynch Ford ordered on December 13, 2021, that appellant be restrained from submitting any documents through JEDS, and that he send by regular mail to Judge Lynch Ford any proposed motions in the custody matter. The judge also ordered appellant serve her with any new complaints so she could determine whether the submissions should be filed. The order specifically stated Docket No. OCN-L-1803-20 was for "administrative purposes only." It further provided:
1. That [appellant] shall be restrained from filing any documents under [Docket No. OCN-L-1803-20].
2. That [appellant] shall be immediately restrained from submitting any documents to the court by way of a JEDS filing;
3. That [appellant] shall forward any proposed motions to the undersigned [a]ssignment [j]udge, paper copies, and only under the docket number for the FD-15-802-15 docket which has been consolidated with the C-129-20 docket number; Papers shall be sent by regular mail to the court at P.O. Box 2191, Toms River, N.J. 08754.
4. In the event [appellant] attempts to file any documents through the JEDS system the court may consider a sanction including suppression of his pleadings;
5. All applications relating to custody, parenting time and child support shall be filed under FD-15-802-15.
6. Any other proposed filings for a new complaint shall be sent by regular mail to the undersigned, who shall determine if the filing may occur.
Docket No. FD-15-802-15 refers to appellant's ongoing custody matter pending in the trial court in Ocean County.
Appellant continued to violate the December 13, 2021 order by filing numerous submissions via JEDS. Accordingly, the court responded to appellant's filings on February 8, 2022, In re Richard Hone (Hone I), No. OCN-L-1803-20 (Law Div. Feb. 8, 2022) (slip op. at 1-2); April 14, 2022, In re Richard Hone (Hone II), No. OCN-L-1803-20 (Law Div. Apr. 14, 2022) (slip op. at 1); April 25, 2022, In re Richard Hone (Hone III), No. OCN-L-1803-20 (Law Div. Apr. 25, 2022) (slip op. at 2); and October 17, 2022, In re Richard Hone (Hone IV), No. OCN-L-1803-20 (Law Div. Oct. 17, 2022) (slip op. at 2).
Within these orders, the judge accepted certain filings and rejected others. For example, on April 14, 2022, the court found appellant's submissions constituted a "continuing pattern of vexatious litigation," and therefore they were marked "received not filed." Hone II, (slip op. at 2). Some documents, however, were accepted by the judge and filed, such as appellant's application to relieve the court appointed visitation supervisor, or to modify parenting time. Ibid. The judge reiterated in these orders Docket No. OCN-L-1803-20 was for administrative purposes only.
This appeal followed in which appellant argues:
I. THIS COURT MUST GRANT APPELLANT'S APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THEREUPON REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW BY PREVENTING ACCESS TO THE COURT IN L-1803-20, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO DUE PROCESS (ACCESS TO THE COURTS) AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND A 3RD DEGREE FELONY ([N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2], [N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6]).
II. THIS COURT MUST GRANT APPELLANT'S APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THEREUPON REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW FROM FILING ANY DOCUMENTS IN JEDS, WHICH IS MY "PROOF OF FILING" SINCE SHE NEVER FILES ANYTHING I SEND, AND I ALWAYS WIN MY LEGAL ARGUMENTS, SO NOTHING IS OR EVER HAS BEEN FRIVOLOUS IN MY FAMILY CASE. YOU CAN'T ALLOW A SERIAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATOR/CRIMINAL TO OVERSEE A CASE SHE HAS NO BUSINESS IN ([Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J.Super. 39 (App. Div. 2010)]).
III. WITHDRAWING #3- "ROSENBAUM" DOES NOT COVER FAMILY MATTERS (ONLY L-DOCKETS). This is in the A-1526-21 Family Court Appeal, but Lynch Ford continues to block that "free transcript" Motion because that has her testimony on the crime of deprivation of Civil Rights under [N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6].
IV. THIS COURT MUST GRANT APPELLANT'S APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THEREUPON REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW THE JUDGE CAN'T SANCTION/SUPPRESS MY FILINGS FOR PROTECTING MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
AND NOT ABIDING BY THIS ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE "ORDER".
V. WITHDRAWING #5-I KNOW MY DOCKET NUMBER(S).
VI. THIS COURT MUST GRANT APPELLANT'S APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THEREUPON REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW BECAUSE WHEN I DO MAIL FILINGS, SHE NEVER REVIEWS THEM, OR SENDS THEM BACK "RECEVIED" NOT FILED, SO I FILE IN JEDS FOR PROOF OF FILING, AND SHE NEVER EVEN MARKS THEM "DEFICIENT" LIKE MY FAMILY FILINGS, THEREBY FURTHER BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE COURTS.
II.
We review orders imposing sanctions against litigants who file frivolous papers for abuse of discretion. Parish, 412 N.J.Super. at 51. Rule 1:4-8(c) allows a trial court, on its own initiative, to impose sanctions upon a selfrepresented party for frivolous filings. An assertion that a filing is frivolous may be reviewed by an assignment judge "with an understanding of the results of past litigation and similar allegations which have turned out to be frivolous." Rosenblum, 333 N.J.Super. at 391; see also R. 1:33-4(a). When issuing a sanction order for frivolous litigation under Rosenblum, 333 N.J.Super. at 39297, a judge must evaluate "the volume and disposition of the cases" filed by the litigant, "address the allegations in the present complaints," "give reasons for her conclusion that the complaints may not be filed," "be assured that more traditional sanctions will not protect against frivolous litigation," and "must review the new complaint to be assured that a meritorious claim is not suppressed." Ibid. See also Parish, 412 N.J.Super. at 54.
Restrictions against a litigant's filing of prospective motions, such as Judge Lynch Ford's December 13, 2021 order, are appropriate in certain circumstances. See D'Amore v. D'Amore, 186 N.J.Super. 525, 530 (App. Div. 1982) (holding a trial court has the power to enjoin prospective harassing litigation). "However, 'that power must be exercised consistently with the fundamental right of the public to access to the courts in order to secure adjudication of claims on their merits.'" Rosenblum, 333 N.J.Super. at 396 (quoting D'Amore, 186 N.J.Super. at 530). In reviewing whether a filing is frivolous, an assignment judge must "do more than conclude [a] plaintiff's prior complaints were frivolous. The assignment judge must be assured that more traditional sanctions will not protect against frivolous litigation and must review the new complaint to be assured that a meritorious claim is not suppressed." Ibid.
Having reviewed the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the entry of Judge Lynch Fords' December 13, 2021 order. The judge issued a well-reasoned opinion that reviewed the constitutional and public policy implications of limiting appellant's filings, ultimately concluding that such an order was permissible and necessary pursuant to Rosenblum, id. at 385. As detailed in Judge Lynch Ford's comprehensive written opinion, appellant's repeated filings and requests for recusal and changes of venue demonstrate a pattern of frivolous and meritless litigation designed to harass the court and its staff.
We further reject appellant's argument that Judge Lynch Ford has denied appellant access to the courts and specifically that the judge failed to review his submissions. As noted, the December 13, 2021 order requires appellant to "forward any proposed motion to [Judge Lynch Ford]" under Docket No. FD-15-802-15, to allow her to review his motions and determine if appellant set forth any legitimate or meritorious claims. Further, the order clearly indicated Docket No. OCN-L-1803-20 was created for administrative purposes only. Despite this requirement, appellant continued to improperly file motions via JEDS under Docket No. FD-15-802-15. Appellant's failure to properly comply with the judge's order cannot be construed as a denial of access to the courts and appellant still had access to the court's via submitting his filings directly to Judge Lynch Ford as indicated by her order.
Further, it is undisputed that Judge Lynch Ford reviewed appellant's submissions as evidenced by the orders issued on February 8, 2022, Hone I, (slip op. at 1-2); April 14, 2022, Hone II, (slip op. at 1); April 25, 2022, Hone III, (slip op. at 2); and October 17, 2022, Hone IV, (slip op. at 2). The judge's identification of improper filings as "received not filed" does not equate to a failure to substantively review appellant's submissions.
Finally, we would be remiss if we did not note the significant procedural deficiencies in appellant's filings before us. For example, as noted, appellant's brief fails to cite to record evidence in support of his statements of facts, and his appendix does not contain relevant documents and orders related to this appeal. See R. 2:6-2(a)(5). Appellant's status as a pro se litigant does not relieve him of his obligation to comply with our Rules. See Venner v. Allstate, 306 N.J.Super. 106 (App. Div. 1997). Such deficiencies have "needlessly increase[d] the amount of time and effort required to familiarize ourselves with the appellate record," Walters v. YMCA, 437 N.J.Super. 111, 121 (App. Div. 2014).
To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of the appellant's arguments it is because we have concluded they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(3)(1)(E).
Affirmed.