Opinion
14-MC-876 (NGG)
07-26-2014
ANTON PURISIMA, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE ZHENG, NAFANG MO, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC), WANG DONG, SUN KAILIANG, WEN XIN YU, HUANG ZHEN YU, HUANG ZHEN YU, GU CHUNHUI, EDWARD J. SNOWDEN, DOES 1-1.3 BILLION, Defendants.
ORDER
.
On January 31, 2012, in response to the filing of multiple frivolous and duplicative actions by Plaintiff Anton Purisima, this court barred Plaintiff from filing any new in forma pauperis complaints in this court without first seeking the court's leave. See Purisima v. Xilai, No. 11-CV-5523 (NGG), 2012 WL 293772 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012), reconsideration denied, 2012 WL 669045 (E.D.N. Y. Feb. 29, 2012). On July 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Proposed Complaint (Dkt. 2), accompanied by a request for leave to file a new action (Dkt. 1) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 3).
Plaintiff's request for leave fails to provide the court with any valid reason to allow the proposed action to go forward. Plaintiff argues that the Proposed Complaint should be allowed to proceed as it is "related" to his pending case, Purisima v. Tiffany Entertainment, et al., No. 09-CV-3502 (NGG). To the extent that his Proposed Complaint reiterates substantially the same allegations raised in his "underlying" action, the claims plainly are duplicative. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to raise new claims, his allegations are rambling and baseless. For instance, Plaintiff alleges that the People's Republic of China executed "Three (3) plus One (1) Filipinos" as retaliation against Plaintiff. (Proposed Compl. at 32.) He further asserts that China harvested the organs of the aforementioned individuals and "transferred these harvested organs to waiting rich Chinese." (Id. at 33.) In addition, Plaintiff's Proposed Complaint includes a letter directed to Edward Snowden, in which Plaintiff seeks damages for any and all actions that Mr. Snowden is alleged to have taken against the United States and challenges Mr. Snowden to a game of poker at a casino of Mr. Snowden's choosing. (Id. at 21-30.) Finally, Plaintiff seeks to recover ten duodecillion dollars in damages (id. at 56), which is a one followed by thirty-seven zeroes and equates to roughly 5.8 x 1023 times the gross domestic product of the United States.
Plaintiff's allegations are frivolous and duplicative. Plaintiff demonstrates that neither his lack of success in filing these submissions nor the warnings of this court will deter him from filing frivolous and repetitive proceedings. See Purisima v. Xilai, et al., No. 1 l-CV-5523 (NGG), 2011 WL 6329831, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2011) (dismissing Plaintiff's claims as frivolous and duplicative of his previous actions); Purisima v. Xilai, et al., No. 12-MC-748 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2013) (denying Plaintiff leave to file duplicative suit); Purisima v. Zemin, et al., No. 12-MC-755 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2013) (same).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for leave to file a new action and accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED. The court's prior Order barring Plaintiff from filing future in forma pauperis complaints without first seeking the court's leave remains in effect. The Clerk of Court is directed to return without filing and without judicial order any future in forma pauperis complaint submitted by Plaintiff that does not comply with the Court's filing injunction.
The court certifies pursuant to 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. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this action
SO ORDERED.
s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
NCHOLAS G. GARAUFIS
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July 26, 2014