Cerigny et al v. Joseph Thomas Cappadora, CPA et al
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's pleadings at issue are stricken and his claims in all captioned matters are dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that sanctions are imposed upon Plaintiff in the amount of $75,000.00 for his c ontinuous barrage of frivolous lawsuits and pleadings filed in this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be prohibited from filing pleadings and lawsuits in this Court, or removing any Louisiana state cases to this Court, until imposed sanctions are paid in whole to this Courts registry, or unless leave of court it first granted. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 02/06/2019.(Reference: All Cases)(NEF: Pro Se, Financial Unit)(am)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DONNA CERIGNY, ET. AL.
REF ALL CASES
JOSEPH THOMAS CAPPADORA, ET. AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
On August 03, 2018, this Court ordered pro se Plaintiff
Charles Edward Lincoln III to show cause in writing why this case
and all other connected cases should not be dismissed sua sponte
in their entirety and to further show cause why sanctions should
not be imposed onto Plaintiff Lincoln no later than Friday, August
17, 2018. See Rec. Doc. 42. Plaintiff Lincoln sought extension of
time to file his response, and this Court granted that extension.
See Rec. Doc. Nos. 43, 44. Plaintiff Lincoln timely filed his
response on August 22, 2018. See Rec. Doc. Nos. 45.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Lincoln, joined by two other
asserting, inter alia, breach and dissolution of partnership,
breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, racketeering, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Rec. Doc. 1; see
also Rec. Doc. 15. Plaintiffs alleged minimum direct actual damages
$1,500,000.00. On November 14, 2017, the Clerk of this Court issued
a RICO Standing Order. See Rec. Doc. 4. Plaintiffs responded with
a partial RICO statement and completed RICO statement. See Rec.
Doc. Nos. 15, 17, 36. Subsequently, numerous motions were filed,
including motions for extension, motions to strike, emergency
motions, motions for leave to file, and motions to dismiss parties.
Since the filing of this lawsuit, at least three of the originally
named defendants have been dismissed from the case. On June 5,
2018, Civil Action No. 18-869 was consolidated with this case. See
Rec. Doc. 25. Plaintiff Lincoln has several other cases pending in
this Court, including Civil Action Nos. 17-12275 c/w 18-6308, 1717423, and 18-4542.
inappropriate asserts regarding the First City Court Judge in New
Orleans, referring to the judges as “butchers who operate with
cleavers disguised as gavels.” See Rec. Doc. 35. He also presents
profession, Louisiana state courts, and Federal District Court.
See e.g., Cerigny et. al. v. Cappadora et. al., Civil Action No.
17-11111 (E.D. La. Oct. 24, 2017); Chiu et. al., v. Lincoln et.
al., Civil Action No. 17-12275 (E.D. La. Nov. 13, 2017); Chiu et.
al. v. Lincoln et. al., Civil Action No. 18-6308 (E.D. La. June
28, 2018); Lincoln v. Chenevert et. al., Civil Action No. 18-869
(E.D. La. Jan. 29, 2018). Plaintiff Lincoln continues to file
frivolous filings with illogical arguments in this Court. He has
been sanctioned for similar behavior in several other districts,
including the Western District of Texas. See Abbot v. Simon, Civil
Action No. 08-00010-WSS (W.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008).
On August 3, 2018, this Court ordered Plaintiff Lincoln to
show cause in writing why this case and all other connected cases
should not be dismissed sua sponte in their entirety and to further
show cause why sanctions should not be imposed onto Plaintiff
Lincoln. See Rec. Doc. 42. On August 22, 2018, after being granted
an extension, Plaintiff Lincoln timely filed his response. See
Rec. Doc. 45.
PLAINTIFF LINCOLN’S RESPONSE
Plaintiff prays, inter alia, that this Court approve his
response and discharge its Order to Show Cause.
Plaintiff states that he has taken significant steps to cure
the bankruptcy problem mentioned in the Order to Show Cause. See
id. at 6. He claims that he too was alarmed at the conversion of
bankruptcy case and is now ready to present the correct facts to
the Court. See id. at 1. He also claims that he filed a new Chapter
11 bankruptcy case on August 21, 2018 in the U.S. District Court
for the District New Jersey. See id. at 2. He contends that the
cases he has in this Court “relate even more directly to the new
bankruptcy than to the old.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff thinks that it
would be best for this Court to allow him to transfer his cases to
New Jersey because he now has two cases (one bankruptcy and one
civil) pending in that court. See id. at 5.
Plaintiff also asks this Court to clearly identify how he has
violated Rule 11(b). See id. at 7. Specifically, he asks this Court
to “itemize each and every . . . paragraph in [his] pleadings, in
an amended version of its Order to Show Cause.” Id. at 13.
Plaintiff Lincoln states that this Court should allow him to speak
his mind and voice his opinions against certain Louisiana State
Court Judges. See id. at 8. This Court’s use of an order to show
cause to preclude litigation of his “potential mass-constitutional
tort or class action” cases is an overbroad application of Rule 11
and therefore a violation of the Constitution. See id. at 14.
Plaintiff refers to Civil Action No. 18-4542, describing the
defendant as a café that is acting as an agent for present and
former mayors of New Orleans. See id. He goes on to say that he
intends to support his Complaint with affidavits from “people all
over the world.” Id. at 15. He has numerous volunteers, but his
main volunteer has been incapacitated and unable to help. See id.
He requests for this Court to itemize the defects of his Complaint.
See id. at 15-16. He stands to be corrected or sanctioned, but
only for offenses that he has committed. See id. at 16.
Plaintiff admits to being sanctioned by Judge Walter Smith in
Texas in 2008 but contends that the said order was “entered in
secret.” See id. at 19. He was suffering from depression and did
not learn of the order or have the ability to appeal the order.
See id. He knew the order was void due to lack of actual notice.
See id. If this Court enters a similar order regarding sanctions,
Plaintiff plans to “present [both orders] to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals.” See id.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In the Fifth Circuit, it is well established that courts have
the discretion to enjoin plaintiffs from filing frivolous claims.
See e.g. Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 1981). There
is no one, rich or poor, that is entitled to abuse to the judicial
process. See Hardwick v. Brinson, 523 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir.
1975); see also Green v. Camper, 477 F. Supp. 758, 770 (W.D. Mo.
1979) (“Accordingly, in light of plaintiff's history in this, and
other courts, of initiating frivolous and malicious litigation .
. . and his demonstrated abuse of the judicial process . . . this
action should . . . [be] dismissed . . .."). “Flagrant abuse of
the judicial process can enable one person to preempt the use of
meritorious claims of other litigants.” Green, 649 F.2d at 287.
Courts may impose sanctions on plaintiffs that abuse the
judicial process. See United States v. Henry, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
81059 *1, *21 (E.D. La. 2010) citing to Goldgar v. Office of
Admin., Executive Office of the President, 26 F.3d 32, 34 (5th
sanctions necessary or warranted to control its docket and maintain
the orderly administration of justice.”). Specifically, Rule 11(b)
provides that a court may impose sanctions where an attorney or
unrepresented party presents pleadings, written motions, or other
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(1). Furthermore, the court may impose
sanctions where assertions or submission of claims, defenses, and
factual contentions are unsupported by existing law, good-faith
argument, or evidentiary support. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(2)-(4).
Plaintiff’s Response fails to address why this Court should
not strike his pleadings, dismiss his pending lawsuits, and impose
monetary sanctions. Specifcally, Plaintiff states that he has
filed a new Chapter 11 bankruptcy case and that all his pending
lawsuits in this Court should be transferred to the court where
his new bankruptcy case is now pending; requests this Court to
allow him to speak his opinion against Louisiana State Court
Judges; states that a named defendant is absolutely in default
because she is a “bad apple and bad actor”; demands this Court to
itemize each and every paragraph in his pleadings that violate
Rule 11(b); states that he intends to support his Complaint with
affidavits from “people all over the world” and with the help of
a committed “cohort and ally” that has been incapacitated and
unable to help; and contends that the sanctions imposed by Judge
Walter Smith against him in Texas in 2008 were “entered in secret
(at least secret from [him]).” See Rec. Doc. 45.
After being given an opportunity to explain his claims and
avoid dismissal of his claims, Plaintiff Lincoln filed another
incoherent and conclusory pleading. See Rec. Doc. 45; see also
Rec. Doc. Nos. 4, 7, 11, 31. Recognizing the need to curtail
further frivolous filings that overburden this Court, this Court
should invoke its general supervisory power to control its docket.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pleadings at issue are stricken
and his claims in all captioned matters are dismissed.
Plaintiff in the amount of $75,000.00 for his continuous barrage
of frivolous lawsuits and pleadings filed in this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be prohibited from
filing pleadings and lawsuits in this Court, or removing any
Louisiana state cases to this Court, until imposed sanctions are
paid in whole to this Court’s registry, or unless leave of court
it first granted.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of February, 2019.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?