Haque v. Social Security Administration

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/13/2012. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. C 12-80266 CRB SERAJUL HAQUE, ORDER DENYING FILING OF PAPERS Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ET AL., Defendants. / Plaintiff Serajul Haque is subject to pre-filing review of papers he seeks to file because he has been declared a vexatious litigant. See Order Dismissing Complaints and Declaring Petitioner Vexatious Litigant (“Vex. Order”), In re cases filed by Serajul Haque, No. C-04-mc-231-MHP (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2005). Under the vexatious litigant order, Mr. Haque is barred from filing any papers regarding employment or employment-related matters unless permitted by the Court. Id. at 2 The instant matter relates to employment and thus is subject to that prefiling review. Haque’s papers include two documents styled as “Complaints”: one concerns alleged employment discrimination by Fry’s Electronics, where Haque apparently worked between 1998 and 1999 according to a resume attached to the complaint, see Compl. Ex. 10; the other is against the Social Security Commissioner and concerns alleged errors in “work credits” reflected in his social security statement. Compl. 1 & Ex. 1. 1 Haque has already filed multiple employment discrimination suits against Fry’s. E.g., 2 Haque v. Fry’s Elecs., Inc., No. 05-mc-80069-MHP (N.D. Cal. closed Feb. 15, 2006); Haque 3 v. Fry’s Elecs., Inc., No. 05-1935-MHP (N.D. Cal. closed Feb. 15, 2006); Haque v. Fry’s 4 Elecs., Inc., No. 04-2116-RMW (N.D. Cal. closed Jan. 25, 2005); Haque v. Fry’s Elecs., Inc., 5 No. 02-5147-RMW (N.D. Cal. closed Jan. 22, 2003). The Order declaring Haque a 6 vexatious litigant dismissed Haque’s suit against Fry’s on the merits. Vex. Order at 1. The claims in this matter are thus barred by res judicata; to the extent they concern 7 8 conduct postdating his previous lawsuits–unlikely given the dates of his alleged 9 employment–this Court finds that the current complaint is so conclusory and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 incomprehensible that it too fails to state a claim; the only allegations regarding the nature of 11 Haque’s claims are: 14 ALL STATUTORY DISCRIMINATIONS-CONTRACT VIOLATIONSBLACKLISTING IN JOB MARKET-NEGATIVE REF TO PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS-NOT USED/PLACED PLAINTIFF IN ACCOUNTSFINANCE RELATED JOBS (qualifying services for CPA license) res judicata defendable 15 Compl. Ex. 1 at 2 (all formatting from original). Those allegations are too vague to support a 16 plausible claim for relief, especially given the doubts about whether they have already been 17 resolved in one of the other of the many1 other suits Haque has filed. 12 13 18 As for his complaints regarding social security, Haque’s second “Complaint” is in a 19 template for individuals seeking review of a decision by the Social Security Commissioner, 20 yet Haque describes no action by the Social Security Administration that would be subject to 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 27 28 1 A search of Mr. Haque’s name in the Court’s electronic filing system revealed that he has filed 51 actions in the last ten years in this district alone. 2 1 judicial review. His papers would thus fail to state a claim against the Social Security 2 Commissioner. 3 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Haque’s filing. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 Dated: December 13, 2012 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\CRBALL\2012\80266\order re vexatious litigant.wpd 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?