Opinion
Civil Action 23-5193 23-5194 23-5196 23-5197 23-5198 24-159 24-161 24-223 24-225 24-226 24-228 24-229 24-230 24-233 24-235 24-236 24-237 24-238 24-239 24-241 24-242 24-247 24-251 24-252 24-254 24-255 24-281 24-337 24-411 24-414 24-417 24-419 24-420 24-421
02-07-2024
FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. GO FOOT CARE LLC FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. VENANTE TOUSSAINT FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. VENANTE TOUSSAINT FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. MATTHEW BARKOFF FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. ALLISON VITELLAET FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. VENANTE TOUSSAINT FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. VENANTE TOUSSAINT FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint In re Fritz Gerald Toussaint FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. OVS FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. BROOKYLYN PUBLIC LIBRARY FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. TANYA FAYE FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. MERLIN CHARLES FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. ALLIA ARRAZIA FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. THOMAS DINAPOLI FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. IHRC FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. HILLARY CLINTON FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. BOB BARRET FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. ITZEL FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. RADAMES VELASQUEZ FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT v. JABLONSKI
MEMORANDUM
GERALD AUSTIN MCHUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
These are actions brought by the same pro se litigant, Fritz Gerald Toussaint, all filed in a period of less than two months. Mr. Toussaint has not paid the necessary filing fees in any of these actions, nor has he moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Notices sent by the Clerk of Court to the various addresses he has supplied have been returned without delivery, and based on the Court's investigation to date, it appears that all Mr. Toussaint's purported addresses are invalid.
The Court has expended substantial time trying to comprehend the filings, with minimal success. Forty-three cases have been filed. Eight have been transferred because, however opaque the filing may be, there is no discernible link to this district. But those cases all suffer from the same deficits discussed below, and face prompt dismissal. Another case has been dismissed as duplicative. Many of the filings consist of a single page, without an identifiable defendant. Where a defendant is named, in most instances there is no further identifying information. In one case, Myparkingtickets.com LLC v. City of New York (23-5195), Mr. Toussaint sued in the name of a business with which he has no apparent affiliation. In another single page filing, he sued former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accusing her of mass deportations and demanding “discovery.”
The common denominator in all these actions is a failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “a demand for the relief sought.” “[A] pleading that is so ‘vague or ambiguous' that a defendant cannot reasonably be expected to respond to it will not satisfy Rule 8.” Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 93 (3d Cir. 2019); see also Fabian v. St. Mary's Med. Ctr., No. 16-4741, 2017 WL 3494219, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2017) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that pleadings provide enough information to put a defendant on sufficient notice to prepare their defense and also ensure that the Court is sufficiently informed to determine the issue.”) (quotations omitted). Twelve of the case-initiating documents also violate Rule 10(a)'s requirement that a pleading contain a caption with the Court's name and the names of the parties - styled by the Clerk of Court as “In Re: Fritz Gerald Toussaint” for this reason -and all of them violate Rule 10(b)'s requirement that claims be listed in numbered paragraphs. Some of the filings are filled with sideways writing and arrows connecting disjointed sentences. In sum, the filings in each of these cases are accurately described as “so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Garrett, 938 F.3d at 94.
All the cases have been reviewed. Given these inherent deficiencies, and Mr. Toussaint's elusiveness, continuing this process of individually crafted orders for the remaining 34 cases is not a wise use of judicial resources. They will be dismissed, without prejudice. Should Mr. Toussaint seek to revive these matters, notwithstanding his pro se status, he must do so in reasonable compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and must further comply with the terms of the accompanying Order.