Cerigny et al v. Joseph Thomas Cappadora, CPA et al

Filing 77

AMENDED ORDER AND REASONS. ORDERED that Plaintiff's pleadings at issue are stricken and his claims in all captioned matters are dismissed. FURTHER ORDERED that sanctions are imposed upon Plaintiff in the amount of $75,000.00 for his continu ous barrage of frivolous lawsuits and pleadings filed in this Court. 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 the Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties, and Forfeiture, Not Otherwise Classified Fund (Fund Code 109900), or unless leave of court it first granted for good cause. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 2/22/19.(Reference: All Cases) (NEF:Financial)(sbs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DONNA CERIGNY, ET. AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-11111
c/w 18-0869
REF ALL CASES

JOSEPH THOMAS CAPPADORA, ET. AL.

SECTION: “B”(1)

AMENDED 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
plaintiffs,

filed

a

complaint

against

numerous

defendants,

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.

1

Doc. 15. Plaintiffs alleged minimum direct actual damages in the
amount $150,000.00, with total damages exceeding $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 and 18-4542.
In his numerous filings, Plaintiff Lincoln makes 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 nonsensical
arguments, blatantly disrespecting the legal 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

2

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

3

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 1516. 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

4

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 judicial time
that properly could be used to consider the 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 Cir. 1994)
(“[Federal courts have] authority to structure sanctions necessary

5

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

submissions

for

improper purposes, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation. See FED. R. CIV. P.
11(b)(1).
assertions

Furthermore,
or

the

submission

court
of

may

claims,

impose

sanctions

defenses,

and

where
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

6

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. Accordingly,
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 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 the Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties, and Forfeiture,
Not Otherwise Classified Fund (Fund Code 109900), or unless leave
of court it first granted for good cause.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of February, 2019.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7