COPELAND v. TOWNSHIP OF BELLMAWR et al
Filing
110
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/28/2021. (tf, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARCIA COPELAND, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:17-cv-12104-NLH-JS
OPINION
TOWNSHIP OF BELLMAWR, STATE
OF NEW JERSEY, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE OF THE STATE
OF NEW JERSEY, GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE (NJ), JIM BRALEY,
MAYOR OF BELLMAWR, JSC MARY
EVA COLALILLO, JSC DEBORAH
SILVERMAN KATZ, JSC ROBERT
MILLENKY, ROBERT SALDUTTI,
ESQ., ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIAL CONDUCT, LISA
SHARKEY, JUDGE ANTHONY
PUGLISI, ANDREW KARCICH,
ESQ., SCOTT LEVINE, ESQ., and
MARTY ABO,
Defendants.
MARCIA COPELAND, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JUDGE
NAN FAMULAR, ROBERT SALDUTTI,
ESQ., DEUTCHE BANK,
Defendants.
1:18-cv-10554-NLH-JS
HILLMAN, District Judge
Presently before the Court is the resolution of the Court’s
Orders to Show Cause, issued to Plaintiff, Marcia Copeland,
M.D., appearing pro se, in both above-captioned actions, as to
why this Court should not enter a preclusion order and enjoin
Plaintiff from filing any claims in this District regarding the
subject matter of this and her other cases without prior
permission of the Court.
(1:17-cv-12104, Docket No. 11, entered
February 8, 2019; 1:18-cv-10554, Docket No. 96, entered August
7, 2018.)
This Court explained in Civil 1:18-cv-10554-NLH-JS
(“Copeland VI”) that it was the sixth federal court action filed
by Plaintiff concerning a state court default judgment entered
against her in February 2012. 1
The sixth action was a virtual
duplicate of her fifth action, 1:17-cv-12104 (“Copeland V”).
The Court’s delay in resolving the Orders to Show Cause has
been a result of Plaintiff’s multiple appeals to the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in both actions, as well as the
As the Court noted in its Opinion in the fifth action COPELAND
V. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 1:17-cv-12104-NLH-JS (“Copeland V”),
Plaintiff’s previous actions concerning the same default
judgment are: COPELAND v. ABO & COMPANY, LLC, 1:13-cv-03978-RMBKMW (“Copeland I”); 1:13-cv-03979-RMB-KMW (“Copeland II”); 1:13cv-04232-RMB-AMD (“Copeland III”); and COPELAND v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 3:15-cv-07431-AET-TJB (“Copeland IV”).
Plaintiff has filed other actions arising out of different
properties, although Plaintiff’s claims appear to be of a
similar genre. See COPELAND v. TOWNSHIP OF PENNSAUKEN, 1:14-cv02002-RMB-AMD; COPELAND v. NEWFIELD BANK, 1:17-cv-00017-NLH-KMW;
COPELAND v. US BANK, 1:18-cv-00019-NLH-KMW.
1
2
institution of another action on July 26, 2019 after this Court
issued the Orders to Show Cause.
See COPELAND v. US BANK CUST
PCF STERLING NATIONAL, et al., 3:20-cv-07016-FLW-DEA (“Copeland
VII”). 2
All Plaintiff’s complaints, including her seventh action
before Chief Judge Wolfson, were ultimately dismissed on several
grounds including judicial immunity, res judicata, New Jersey’s
entire controversy doctrine, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and
Plaintiff’s failure to state any cognizable claims.
Because the appeals have been resolved, 3 and the newest
action has been closed, 4 the issue of whether this Court should
enjoin Plaintiff from further litigation without first obtaining
permission from the Court is ripe for resolution.
Even though
the Court’s Orders to Show Cause were entered on August 7, 2018
and February 8, 2019, Plaintiff has never directly responded to
those Orders, although she has filed other submissions, such as
motions for recusal and other miscellaneous relief, after the
Court issued the Orders.
Thus, the Court will consider the
Court’s Orders to Show Cause to have been conveyed to Plaintiff
Plaintiff filed 3:20-cv-07016-FLW-DEA in the District of
Connecticut, but on May 26, 2020, the action was transferred to
this District.
2
The Third Circuit affirmed this Court on all of Plaintiff’s
appeals in 1:17-cv-12104-NLH-JS and 1:18-cv-10554-NLH-JS.
3
Chief Judge Wolfson entered a final order of dismissal on July
23, 2021. Plaintiff’s time to appeal has expired.
4
3
and intentionally unopposed. 5
The “federal court system is not a playground to be used by
litigants for harassing those they dislike.”
Gilgallon v.
Carroll, 153 F. App’x 853, 855 (3d Cir. 2005).
is not available for “recreational litigation.”
The court system
See Marrakush
Soc. v. New Jersey State Police, 2009 WL 2366132, *36 (D.N.J.
July 30, 2009) (explaining that a “‘recreational litigant’ is
the ‘one who engages in litigation as sport and files numerous
complaints with little regard for substantive law or court
rules.’” (quoting Jones v. Warden of the Stateville Correctional
Ctr., 918 F. Supp. 1142, 1153 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (noting that,
“[w]hen confronted with [a] recreational plaintiff, courts, to
protect themselves and other litigants, have enjoined the filing
of further case without leave of court”) (other citations
omitted)).
It is well within the broad scope of the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a), for a district court to issue an order
restricting the filing of meritless cases by a litigant whose
manifold complaints aim to subject defendants to unwarranted
harassment, and raise concern for maintaining order in the
court’s dockets.
Telfair v. Office of U.S. Attorney, 443 F.
App’x 674, 677 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing In re Oliver, 682 F.2d
There is no indication on the docket that the Court’s Orders to
Show Cause were not delivered to Plaintiff.
5
4
443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982)).
A “district court has authority to
require court permission for all subsequent filings once a
pattern of vexatious litigation transcends a particular
dispute.”
Id. (citation omitted).
Before a court issues a
litigation preclusion order, the court must give notice to the
litigant to show cause why the proposed injunctive relief should
not issue.
Id. (citing Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038
(3d Cir. 1993)).
As this Court previously found in Copeland V, the “history
of this case and Plaintiff’s unrelenting efforts to relitigate a
2012 state court judgment by filing numerous, repetitive, and
unmeritorious lawsuits in both state and federal court against
any and all parties involved appears to warrant the imposition
of sanctions in the form of a litigation preclusion order.”
(Copeland V, Docket No. 95 at 14-16.)
These observation have
been amplified by Plaintiff subsequently filing Copeland VI and
Copeland VII.
The federal district court is not Plaintiff’s playground,
although she has treated it as such.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s
efforts to repeatedly regurgitate the same unmeritorious claims
against the same defendants in this Court and others
demonstrates that Plaintiff’s aim is not for the vindication of
valid claims but for harassment.
There is no question that
Plaintiff’s pattern of vexatious litigation must be stopped.
5
Consequently, the Court will enter an order enjoining
Plaintiff from filing any claims in this District regarding the
subject matter of her prior cases (Copeland I through Copeland
VII) without prior permission of the Court.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Date: September 28, 2021
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
6
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?