Opinion
5:22-CV-513 5:22-CV-480 5:22- CV-511 5:22- CV-512 5:22- CV-514 5:22- CV-524 5:22- CV-526 5:22- CV-527 5:22- CV-528 5:22- CV-529 5:22- CV-530 5:22- CV-531 5:22- CV-532 5:22- CV-533 5:22- CV-534 5:22- CV-535 5:22- CV-536 5:22- CV-537 5:22- CV-538 5:22- CV-539 5:22-CV-540
07-11-2022
ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. RAMADA CARRIER CIRCLE and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. COURTYARD SYRACUSE DOWNTOWN AT ARMORY SQUARE and MARRIOTT BONVOY, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY INN & SUITES DOWNTOWN and CHOICE HOTELS, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SPRINGHILL SUITES CLEVELAND INDEPENDENCE and MARRIOTT BONVOY, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. COURTYARD ERIE BAYFRONT and MARRIOTT BONVOY, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, ESA MANAGEMENT LLC and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. BEST WESTERN PLUS and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SPRINGHILL SUITES SYRACUSE CARRIER CIRCLE and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. RED ROOF INN #157 and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. HAMPTON BY HILTON and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MOTEL 6 and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. EMBASSY SUITES BY HILTON and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAS BEST VALUE INN and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT SYRACUSE CARRIER CIRCLE and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CRESTHILL SUITES and INDEED, Defendants ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. EXECUTIVE EAST SYRACUSE HOTEL LLC and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. RODEWAY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. DAYS INN BY WINDHAM SYRACUSE and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CANDLEWOOD SUITES EAST SYRACUSE and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. DOUBLETREE BY HILTON SYRACUSE and INDEED, Defendants. ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. HOMETOWN INN BY RED ROOF and INDEED, Defendants.
APPEARANCES: ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, Pro Se
APPEARANCES:
ROBERT W. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff, Pro Se
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID N. HURD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 17 and May 19, 2022, pro se plaintiff Robert W. Johnson (“plaintiff') filed these twenty-one civil rights actions alleging he was “denied employment” and “discriminated against” by the various hotel defendants and that defendant Indeed “falsified ads and employment.” Along with each complaint, plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”).
On June 21, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter granted plaintiff's IFP Applications for the purposes of filing only and advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that the complaint in each civil action be dismissed without leave to amend as frivolous.
As Judge Baxter explained, plaintiffs pleading in each case failed to plausibly allege the basic elements of any viable claims against any of the named defendants. And as Judge Baxter noted, plaintiffs latest set of filings were “not the first barrage of frivolous complaints filed by the plaintiff.”
To the contrary, at the time these twenty-one civil actions were filed in this judicial district, plaintiff was already subject to bar orders and filing injunctions in the Southern District of New York, the District of Connecticut, the Southern District of Ohio, and had previously been warned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that his continued filing of frivolous appeals might also result in a filing injunction in that forum.
In addition, as a result of plaintiff's filing of forty-five new civil rights actions in a ten-day period, as of May 19, 2022, plaintiff had been “permanently enjoined from filing any pleadings or documents as a pro se plaintiff in this district without prior permission.
Plaintiff has filed objections in each action. Upon de novo review, the R&R will be accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation is ACCEPTED in each of the twenty-one above-captioned civil actions;
2. The twenty-one above-captioned civil actions are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and
3. Plaintiffs motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.