Summary
enjoining Plaintiff for a second time from filing any further actions without seeking prior leave of the court
Summary of this case from Saunders v. BonstromOpinion
00 Civ. 0709 (TPG)
September 14, 2000
OPINION
This is an action by a prisoner at Otisville Correctional Facility. It is the latest in a series of baseless lawsuits, dating back about 10 years, brought against numerous persons connected with the Federal Government and the New York State Government, and also against private parties.
By order dated September 21, 1999 the court dismissed a prior action as frivolous, and directed that plaintiff was enjoined from filing any further actions in this court without seeking prior leave of court.Saunders v. The City of New York. et al. (99 Civ. 9206).
The present action was commenced in state court, and removed to the federal court because the complaint has named various federal officials and employees.
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to remand the case to state court. The federal defendants have filed a motion seeking to substitute the United States of America in place of individual federal defendants and seeking dismissal of the complaint. In addition the federal defendants oppose the motion for remand. There is also a motion by a private attorney, James Baker, who is named as a defendant, seeking to have the action dismissed against him.
The motion to remand the case to state court is without merit and is denied. The motion of the individual federal defendants to substitute the United States as a defendant is granted. The motions of the federal defendants and of James Baker to dismiss the case as to them are granted.
Beyond this, it is clear that the present case is a further abusive lawsuit by plaintiff and is entirely without merit as to any of the numerous defendants. In view of the litigation history of plaintiff and his various lawsuits, there is no occasion for imposing on all the defendants the burden and expense of filing motions to dismiss. If plaintiff had sued in the first instance in the federal court, he would have been faced with the necessity of obtaining permission. Such permission would not have been granted for the filing of the present lawsuit. Since plaintiff sued in state court, the requirement of obtaining permission did not literally apply. However, the action has been removed, and it is appropriate to invoke the requirement to seek permission before the action proceeds further. Such permission is hereby denied and the action is dismissed as to all defendants.
SO ORDERED.