Kornafel v. U.S. Postal Serv.

Full title: STANLEY E. KORNAFEL, Plaintiff, v. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 18, 2020

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-CV-4503 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-CV-4503

09-18-2020

STANLEY E. KORNAFEL, Plaintiff, v. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants.

C. Darnell Jones, II J.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 18^th day of September, 2020, upon consideration of Plaintiff Stanley E. Kornafel's pro se Complaint (ECF No. 1), it is ORDERED that:

1. The Complaint is DEEMED filed.

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for the reasons discussed in the Court's Memorandum.

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

4. No later than fourteen days from the date of the mailing of this Order, Kornafel shall SHOW CAUSE by filing a "Response to Show Cause Order" not to exceed ten pages stating why the Court should not enjoin him from filing any more civil actions concerning the identical, untimely allegations he has raised in this case as well as Kornafel v. U.S. Postal Serv., Civ. A. No. 19-2292; Kornafel v. U.S. Postal Serv., Civ. A. No. 99-6416; Kornafel v. United States, Civ. A. No. 00-3250; Kornafel v. U.S. Government, Civ. A. No. 96-7436; and Kornafel v. U.S. Government, Civ. A. No. 95-6670; namely that the litigation and settlement of a March 11, 1992 motor vehicle accident involving a postal service vehicle resulted in an abuse of process, deceit, bias, and other irregularities.

5. Should Kornafel fail to file a Response as directed by Paragraph 4, the Court shall without any further notice enter an order enjoining Kornafel from filing any future similar lawsuits without prior permission of the Court.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ C. Darnell Jones , II

C. Darnell Jones, II J.