Bishay v. Gelpi et al

Filing 27

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal. (bm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BAHIG F. BISHAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIRCUIT JUDGE GUSTAVO A.
GELPI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 24-12331-IT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
March 12, 2025
As set forth below, this action was filed in violation of a federal court injunction
requiring Bahig F. Bishay to obtain leave of court before filing a complaint. The complaint fails
to survive such screening and is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice.
I.

Background
On April 5, 2023, prior to this action being filed, the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia enjoined Bishay from filing any civil action in the District Court for the
District of Columbia “or any other federal court without first obtaining leave of that court.”
Mem. & Order (“the Injunction”). Bishay v. Harris, 668 F. Supp. 3d 9 (D.D.C. 2023), aff’d, No.
23-5019, 2023 WL 6784306 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 6, 2023) (per curiam), reh’g en bank denied, 2023
WL 8836773 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023).1

1

Bishay had similarly been enjoined from filing actions in the Massachusetts state courts,
Lombard v. Bishay, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 1135, at *1 (2015), and from filing petitions in the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Bishay v. Superior Ct. Dep't of the Trial Ct., 487 Mass.
1012, 1013 (2021). Since this action was filed, a District Judge in this District has also barred
Bishay from filing new actions in the District of Massachusetts, without first obtaining leave to

Despite the Injunction, on September 3, 2024, Bishay initiated this action without seeking
leave of court. [Doc. No. 1].
On November 1, 2024, the assigned district judge dismissed the instant action. Following
this dismissal, Bishay filed motions seeking to place the dismissal in abeyance as well as motions
for recusal. [Doc. Nos. 13, 16]. On March 10, 2025, the assigned judge recused herself and
vacated the judgment of dismissal. Elec. Order [Doc. No. 22]. The case was then reassigned to
the undersigned. [Doc. No. 24].
II.

Discussion
As Bishay knows from rulings in earlier cases, this court may recognize and enforce an

injunction issued outside the District of Massachusetts. See Mem. & Order [Doc. No. 5 at 3] In
re: Bahig F. Bishay, No. 24-mc-91061 (D. Mass. May 20, 2024) (collecting cases). Here, Bishay
filed this action without first obtaining leave to file, as required by the Injunction. Because he did
not seek, and receive, leave to file this action, it is subject to dismissal.
The court has considered Bishay’s November 4, 2024 motion seeking to place the prior
dismissal in abeyance. See Mot. [Doc. No. 13]. Bishay asserted that holding the matter in
abeyance was warranted in light of relief he was seeking in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, in docket number 24-5197. Bishay’s then-pending motion has since
been resolved, however, where the D.C. Circuit has entered judgment affirming the D,C. District
Court’s dismissal of Bishay’s case and has denied the motion referenced by Bishay.

do so. Mem. & Order, Bishay v. Ocwen Financial Corp., et al., No. 24-12661 (D. Mass. Oct. 30,
2024).
2

In addition, the court finds the complaint without legal merit. Although the claims in the
complaint are asserted against federal judges in their individual capacities, each of the defendants
enjoys judicial immunity from suit because the allegations in the complaint concern their
exercise of judicial authority.
III.

Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter a separate

order of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
March 12, 2025

/s/ Indira Talwani
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3