In Re: Motion for Leave to File Documents by Enjoined Litigant

Filing 5

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 1 Motion for Leave to File Document ; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Petitions filed in M.B.D. Nos. 19-mc-9 1239, 19-mc-91240, 19-mc-91241, 19-mc-91242, and 19-mc-91243, for Leave to File are hereby DENIED and the actions are DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to close M.B.D. Nos. 19-mc-91239, 19-mc-91240, 19-mc-91241, 19-mc-91242, and 19-mc-91243. (PSSA, 4)

Case 1:19-mc-91239-ADB Document 5 Filed 06/20/19 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN RE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BY ENJOINED LITIGANT

M.B.D. No.
19-mc-91239-ADB

IN RE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BY ENJOINED LITIGANT

M.B.D. No.
19-mc-91240-ADB

IN RE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BY ENJOINED LITIGANT

M.B.D. No.
19-mc-91241-ADB

IN RE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BY ENJOINED LITIGANT

M.B.D. No.
19-mc-91242-ADB

IN RE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BY ENJOINED LITIGANT

M.B.D. No.
19-mc-91243-ADB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants petitioner leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, denies petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel and denies the Petitions for
Leave to File.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner Oak-Hee Kim, also known as Oak-Hee Ruesch, is a frequent pro se litigant

who has been enjoined from filing any paper in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts without first obtaining leave of court. See 1:04-cv-12390-NG, November 17,
2014 Memorandum and Order p. 3.

Case 1:19-mc-91239-ADB Document 5 Filed 06/20/19 Page 2 of 4

The Court’s records indicate that ten of petitioner’s actions have been dismissed either on
the merits or for failure to comply with the enjoinment order. See Ruesch v. Dillon et al., 00-cv12163-NG (dismissed), Ruesch v. Wellesley Housing, 02-cv-12382-NG (dismissed), Ruesch v.
Malerba et al., 03-cv-12036-NG (dismissed); Ruesch v. Goodhue, 04-cv-11166-NG,(dismissed);
Ruesch v. Goodhue, 04-cv-12390-NG (dismissed); Kim v. Newton Housing Authority, 15-cv11487-GAO (removed action dismissed for failure to comply with removal order), Kim v.
Housing and Urban Development, 15-cv-11817-GAO (dismissed for failure to comply with
enjoinment order); Kim v. MCAD,15-cv-12309-WGY (dismissed for failure to comply with
enjoinment order); Kim v. Boston University School of Dental Medicine, 17-cv-11641-GAO
(dismissed); and Kim v. Harvard University School of Dental Medicine, 17-cv-11644-GAO
(dismissed).
Petitioner has also sought leave to file complaints under the enjoinment orders on nine
other occasions. See In re: Kim, 14-mc-91016-FDS (leave to file denied); In re Kim, 15-mc91420-NMG (leave to file denied); In Re Petition for Leave to File, 16-mc-91293-DJC (leave to
file granted for filing 2 complaints, unrelated to the issues raised in the instant petitions); In Re
Petition for Leave to File, 17-mc-91337-DJC (leave to file denied); In Re Petition for Leave to
File, 19-mc-91494-NMG (leave to file denied); In Re Petition for Leave to File, 19-mc-91496NMG (leave to file denied); In Re Petition for Leave to File, 19-mc-91497-NMG (leave to file
denied); In Re Petition for Leave to File, 19-mc-91498-NMG (leave to file denied); and In Re
Petition for Leave to File, 19-mc-91499-NMG (leave to file denied).
On May 31, 2019, Kim filed five petitions seeking leave to file additional actions in this
Court. The Clerk filed the petitions in M.B.D. Nos. 19-mc-91239, 19-mc-91240, 19-mc-91241,
19-mc-91242, and 19-mc-91243.

2

Case 1:19-mc-91239-ADB Document 5 Filed 06/20/19 Page 3 of 4

II.

DISCUSSION
Upon review of Kim’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court

concludes that she is without income or assets to pay the applicable filing fee. The motions are
therefore granted.
Upon review of Kim’s petitions for leave to file, she again seeks to bring suit against
James A. Goodhue (an attorney for the Wellesley Housing Authority) (19-mc-91242), the
Directors and Fellows of the Newton Housing Authority (19-mc-91243), the Massachusetts
Commission against Discrimination (19-mc-91239) and the Secretary of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (19-mc-91240). In 2017, as well as earlier this
year, Kim was denied leave to file these documents. See In Re Petition for Leave to File, 19-mc91494-NMG (denying leave to file); In Re Petition for Leave to File, 19-mc-91496-NMG
(denying leave to file); In Re Petition for Leave to File, 19-mc-91497-NMG (denying leave to
file); In Re Petition for Leave to File, 19-mc-91498-NMG (denying leave to file); In Re Petition
for Leave to File, 19-mc-91499-NMG (denying leave to file); and In Re: Kim, 17-mc-91118NMG (denying leave to file five civil actions Nov. 3, 2017).
Kim also seeks to bring suit against a federal judge and six attorneys for actions taken
over several years relating to Kim’s efforts to litigate several claims. See In Re Petition for
Leave to File, 19-mc-91241-ADB. Petitioner’s proposed complaint is not entirely coherent.
Moreover, Kim mistakenly identifies George A. O’Toole, Jr., id. at Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 12, as the
presiding judge that issued the November 17, 2004 order enjoining Kim from filing papers in this
Court without having received permission from the Court to do so. Ruesch v. Goodhue, et al.,
C.A. No. 04-12390-NG (dismissed Nov. 18, 2004) (Gertner, J.). Regardless, the Court cannot
find that the proposed complaint states a legal claim upon which relief may be granted.

3

Case 1:19-mc-91239-ADB Document 5 Filed 06/20/19 Page 4 of 4

In light of the above, this Court finds that petitioner has not demonstrated that she should
be relieved of the orders prohibiting her from filing lawsuits in this Court. Based on the
pleadings submitted, this Court cannot find that there is an objectively good faith basis for these
proposed suits, or that the proposed complaints present compelling reasons to overcome the
orders enjoining her from filing without leave of court due to her litigation practices.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly:
1.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED.

2.

The motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED.

3.

The Petitions filed in M.B.D. Nos. 19-mc-91239, 19-mc-91240, 19-mc-91241,

19-mc-91242, and 19-mc-91243, for Leave to File are hereby DENIED and the actions are
DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to close M.B.D. Nos. 19-mc-91239, 19-mc-91240, 19-mc91241, 19-mc-91242, and 19-mc-91243.
SO ORDERED.
June 20, 2019

/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

4