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)

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