Opinion
Nos. 01-CV-0811 (FB), 01-CV-0846 (FB).
January 23, 2006
Willia B. Marshall-Screen, Pro Se, Brooklyn, NY, for the Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff filed the instant action on February 12, 2001, against defendants alleging employment discrimination. By order dated August 21, 2002, the Court dismissed the action, and the matter was closed. See Marshall-Screen v. IRS, 01-CV-0811 (FB), 01-CV-0846 (FB) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2002). Notwithstanding the Court's dismissal of the action, plaintiff has submitted numerous meritless motions regarding this closed case. Most recently, on January 6, 2006, plaintiff submitted a Motion for Court Order Protection alleging:
This January 3, 2006 the plaintiff received in the mail a request to subscribe to a life insurance policy. It was shocking to me because I did not request the information or the application. Someone else is committing these acts. And, the Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company contained this threatening material: 1) the policy was for $5,000, 2) the letter listed is my birthday as 2/3/06, 3) This is not my birthday and was completely wrong, 4) the incorrect birthday showed someone — initiated this insurance application and it wasn't me and 5) there was a[n] intimidating threat to send this insurance application before the birthday listed of February 3, 2006.
Due to an administrative error, the matter was assigned two civil action numbers, which were consolidated by order dated March 9, 2001. See Marshall-Screen v. IRS, 01-CV-0811 (FB), 01-CV-0846 (FB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2001).
Mot. at 1. Plaintiff further alleges that she has "received several letters from a secret group saying they had been observing [her] and they asked [her] to join their group" and that she has "newly discovered evidence in the case relevant to the I.R.S. promise to hire [her]." Id. at 2.
As with her previous submissions, the instant motion is without merit and it is denied. Furthermore, plaintiff is warned that the further filing of non-meritorious submissions regarding her employment dispute with defendants may result in the issuance of an order barring the acceptance of future in forma pauperis complaints or submissions concerning this matter without first obtaining leave of court to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651; In re Sassower, 20 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 1994).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.