KAMDEM-OUAFFO v. CAMPBELL'S SOUP COMPANY et al
Filing
221
OPINION AND ORDER Prohibiting Plaintiff from making any future filings or instituting any future actions without express written permission of the Court. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/13/2022. (amv)
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 221 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 6416
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, et
al.,
Defendants.
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, the Court filed an Opinion
and Order to Show Cause denying Plaintiff Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo’s
(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Vacate an October 2020 Opinion and
Order, (ECF 217); and
WHEREAS, in the same Opinion and Order to Show Cause, the
Court recognized Plaintiff’s voluminous filings under multiple
dockets stemming from the termination of his tenure providing
professional services to Defendant Campbell Soup Company and
related purported frauds on the court, continued failure to
abide by Court Orders and procedural rules, and repeated
attempts to lengthen litigation without merit, (id.); and
WHEREAS, the Court therefore entered an Order to Show Cause
providing Plaintiff fifteen days to demonstrate why the Court
“should not prohibit him from making any future filings or
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 221 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 6417
instituting any future actions with respect to the same or
similar parties or the same or similar matters as those
addressed under Docket Nos. 1:17-cv-07506, 1:18-cv-00298, 1:18cv-13119, and 1:22-cv-03285 without express written permission
of the Court,” (id. at 9); and
WHEREAS, the Court further advised that if Plaintiff failed
to show cause, the Court would enter such an Order, (id.); and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2022, Plaintiff moved for a
ninety-day extension to respond to the Court’s Order to Show
Cause, (ECF 218); and
WHEREAS, the Court responded in a Text Order on November
28, 2022, providing Plaintiff with fourteen days from the date
of the Order to file a response, (ECF 219); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has since moved to disqualify the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, (ECF 220), based – at
least in part – on the Court’s October 2020 Opinion finding that
Plaintiff failed to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference, (ECF
220-1 at 12); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has not made any other filings under
this docket 1 since the Court’s November 28, 2022 Text Order; and
On November 8, 2022, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
under Docket No. 1:22-cv-03285 granting Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss in a related matter involving Plaintiff and dismissing
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice. (1:22-cv-03285,
ECF 78). Plaintiff has since moved for re-argument,
clarification, or reconsideration, (1:22-cv-03285, ECF 79), and
2
1
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 221 Filed 12/13/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 6418
WHEREAS, the All Writs Act provides that “all courts
established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” 28 U.S.C. §
1651(a), and “[u]nder the All Writs Act, district courts can
impose filing injunctions on litigants who have engaged in
abusive, groundless, and vexatious litigation,” Parker v. Adm’r
N.J. State Prison, 795 Fed. Appx. 862, 862 (3d Cir. 2020) (per
curiam) (first citation omitted) (citing Chipps v. U.S. Dist.
Court for Middle Dist. of Pa., 882 F.2d 72, 73 (3d Cir. 1989));
and
WHEREAS, district courts (1) may only enter such
injunctions in “exigent circumstances” such as when a litigant
continues to file meritless or repetitive actions, (2) must give
notice to the litigant to show cause why an injunction should
not be issued, and (3) must tailor the scope of any injunction
to fit the circumstances of the case at hand, Gupta v. Wipro
Ltd., 765 Fed. Appx. 648, 651 (3d Cir. 2019) (per curiam); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff received notice that failure to timely
show cause would result in the issuance of a filing injunction,
filed a nearly identical Motion to Disqualify the undersigned,
(1:22-cv-03285, ECF 85). The Court will address the Motion for
Re-Argument, Clarification, or Reconsideration and matching
Motions to Disqualify in a forthcoming Opinion under Docket No.
1:22-cv-03285.
3
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 221 Filed 12/13/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 6419
(ECF 217 at 9), and the Court interprets Plaintiff’s failure to
show cause despite being provided additional time to do so as
support for a finding that such cause does not exist, see Tillio
v. Mendelsohn, 256 Fed. Appx. 509, 509 (3d Cir. 2007) (per
curiam) (holding that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing a matter for failure to prosecute when
the pro se plaintiff failed to respond to an order to show cause
and there was “no indication that he failed to receive the show
cause order or that he did not understand it”); and
WHEREAS, the Court finds that Plaintiff clearly received
and understood the Order to Show Cause as evidenced by his
Motion for Extension of Time, (ECF 218); and
WHEREAS, a court may properly issue a filing injunction
when the party has had an opportunity to show cause why it
should not be issued, Gupta, 765 Fed. Appx. at 652 (finding that
the plaintiff was on notice of the possibility of a filing
injunction and had an opportunity to show cause why it should
not have been imposed as demonstrated by his opposition to the
motion for the filing injunction).
THEREFORE,
IT IS HEREBY on this
13th
day of
December
, 2022
ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from making any future
filings or instituting any future actions with respect to the
same or similar parties or the same or similar matters as those
4
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 221 Filed 12/13/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 6420
addressed under Docket Nos. 1:17-cv-07506, 1:18-cv-00298, 1:18cv-13119, and 1:22-cv-03285 without express written permission
of the Court.
The Clerk shall not docket any future complaints,
motions, letters, or other papers filed by Plaintiff without
prescreening for compliance with this Order and express
permission from the Court.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey
5
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?