From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Proland Mgmt.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 12, 2022
1:22-CV-3734 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. May. 12, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-CV-3734 (LTS)

05-12-2022

KUM NAM LEE, Petitioner, v. PROLAND MANAGEMENT, Respondent.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:

On May 6, 2022, the Court received this pro se action, purportedly brought by Kum Nam Lee. Court records show that this action was actually filed by Young Yil Jo (“Jo”). See, e.g., Lee v. Proland Mgmt., ECF 1:22-CV-2802, 2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2022). On January 18, 2015, the court barred Jo from filing any document in this court in the name of another person, In re Young Yil Jo, ECF 1:14-CV-7793, 2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2015), and on May 6, 2015, the court barred Jo from filing any new civil action or proceeding in this court without first obtaining leave of the court, In re Young Yil Jo, ECF 1:14-CV-7793, 3 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2015).

Because the Court finds that this action was filed by Jo, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice to any civil action that Kum Nam Lee may wish to bring in the future.

The Court advises Jo that the filing injunctions issued in In re Young Yil Jo, 1:14-CV-7793 (S.D.N.Y.), remain in effect. Jo is enjoined from filing any new civil action or proceeding in this court without first obtaining leave of the court. Jo also remains barred from filing any document in this court in the name of another person.

The Court will continue to dismiss any civil action or proceeding filed by Jo in the name of another person without prejudice to any civil action that that person may wish to bring in the future. Should Jo persist in filing civil actions in this court in the name of other persons, the Court may impose additional restrictions and sanctions on him. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

CONCLUSION

The Court dismisses this action without prejudice to any civil action that Kum Nam Lee may wish to bring in the future.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Young Yil Jo, at 1932 E. Washington Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91104, his address of record for In re Young Yil Jo, 1:14-CV-7793, and note service on the docket. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this order to the address of Kum Nam Lee listed on the docket of this action.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lee v. Proland Mgmt.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 12, 2022
1:22-CV-3734 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. May. 12, 2022)
Case details for

Lee v. Proland Mgmt.

Case Details

Full title:KUM NAM LEE, Petitioner, v. PROLAND MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: May 12, 2022

Citations

1:22-CV-3734 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. May. 12, 2022)