Manko v. Steinhardt et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted solely for the purpose of this Memorandum and Order, and the action is hereby dismissed on the basis of res judicata. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i). Furthermore, the Court notifies plaintiff that if she files any further frivolous actions challenging state court decisions and naming defendants against whom claims cannot be sustained, the Court is likely to enter an Order bar ring the acceptance of any future in forma pauperis complaints without first obtaining leave of the Court to do so. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto, on 4/17/2012. C/mailed to pro se Plaintiff. (Forwarded for Judgment.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

1.1 ....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________ X

'~i ' ..:~ ~:~~~... ~ ~~;:f"~':~~

nocKEl &FILE' ·,.
~

PR172Df2

BROOKLYN OFFICE

NELLA MANKO,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against12-CV-1472 (KAM) (LB)
MARSHA L. STEINHARDT, individually and in
her official Capacity as Justice of the
N.Y.S. Supreme Court of Kings County;
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, in her official
capacity as Administrative Judge of
Supreme Court, Kings County; KINGS COUNTY
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
KINGS COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE; JONATHAN
LIPPMAN, Chief Judge, New York Court of
Appeals; NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS;
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, Justice, Appellate
Division of the N.Y.S. Supreme Court
(Second Department); A. GAIL PRUDENTI,
Presiding Justice, Appellate Division of
the N.Y.S. Supreme Court (Second
Department); APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE
N.Y.S. SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPARTMENT);
"JOHN DOE1,u individually and in his
official capacity; "JOHN DOE2,u
individually and in his official
capacity; "JOHN DOE3,u individually and
in his official capacity; "JANE ROE,u
individually and in her official
capacity; and THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

Pro se plaintiff Nella Manko brings this action 1
pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§

1983, alleging that defendants violated

her constitutional rights during the course of her state court

1

*

.J.N.Y.

Plaintiff has previously filed two actions in this court seeking similar
relief against similar parties, arising out of a state court action.
1

medical malpractice action, Kings County Supreme Court Index
Number 30972/2004

(the "State Court Action") .

alleges various pendent state law claims.

Plaintiff also

Plaintiff seeks an

injunction ordering the recusal of Judge Steinhardt in the State
Court Action; reversal, annulment and vacatur of the state
court's orders in the State Court Action; and compensatory and
punitive damages.
55.)

(See ECF No.1, Complaint ("Compl.") at 54-

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted solely for the purpose of this Memorandum and Order, and
the action is hereby dismissed under 28 U.S.C.

§

1915(e) (2) (B).

Plaintiff is also hereby notified that if she persists in filing
additional actions based on her dissatisfaction with state court
decisions, she will likely be subject to an injunction against
further meritless filings.
I.

Standard of Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1915(e) (2) (B), a district

court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where the court
is satisfied that the action is "(i) frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief."

A court must, however, construe a pro se

litigant's pleadings liberally, see Chavis v. Chappius,

2

618 F.3d

162, 171 (2d Cir. 2010), especially when those pleadings allege
civil rights violations.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1,

537 F.3d 185,

191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).
II. Background

Plaintiff has filed numerous personal injury, medical
malpractice, and other tort and common law claims in the New
York state courts during the past several years.

In the past

year alone, plaintiff has also filed three cases in this court,
all of which challenge decisions made in state court actions and
allege constitutional violations by judges, attorneys, court
officers, court reporters and the court involved in those state
court actions.

See Manko v. Finkelstein, No. 11-CV-5054

(E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 14, 2011, dismissed and closed for failure
to pay the filing fee Feb. 10, 2012); Manko v. Steinhardt, No.
11-CV-5103 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 17, 2011, dismissed Jan. 24,
2012); Manko v. Steinhardt, No. 11-CV-5430 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct.
31, 2011, dismissed Jan. 24, 2012).
Although each of the three actions plaintiff
previously filed in this court names slightly different parties,
each seeks to challenge events that occurred in state court and
alleges that the defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional

3

rights during the course of the state court proceedings.

In

every instance, plaintiff's case has been dismissed or
dismissible on the bases of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
judicial and sovereign immunity.3

2

or

In this court's most recent

order under docket number 11-cv-5054, the court requested that
the plaintiff "abstain from filing further duplicative or
frivolous litigation in this court."

Manko v. Finkelstein, No.

11-CV-5054, 2012 WL 407092, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2012).
III. P1aintiff's C1aim is Barred By Res Judicata

Despite the court's request, plaintiff has filed yet a
fourth duplicative action in the Eastern District of New York.
Here, plaintiff again raises claims related to a medical
malpractice filed in state court under Index Number 30972/2004
(Kings County) .

There are limits to how often the court can be

asked to review the same allegations against the same parties.
That limitation is recognized under the doctrine of res

2

3

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, cases "brought by [aJ state-court
loser[ J complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments rendered
before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court
review and rejection of those judgments" are barred in federal courts, which
lack subject-matter jurisdiction over such actions.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).
Plaintiff's case in Manko v. Finkelstein, No. 11-CV-5054, was dismissed
because plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee required to commence an
action in the time allotted.
(See ECF No.8, Docket No. 11-CV-5054.) As
the court explained in its January 9, 2012 Memorandum and Order, however,
even if plaintiff had paid the fee, the court would have dismissed the
action pursuant to Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the doctrines of sovereign
and judicial immunity.
(See ECF No.6, Docket No. 11-CV-5054.)

4

judicata.

See Salahuddin v. Jones,

992 F. 2d 447,

449 (2d Cir.

1993) .
Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim
preclusion, "a final judgment on the merits of an action
precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues
that were or could have been raised in that action."
v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 2000)
Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie,

(quoting Federated

452 U.s. 394, 398

also EDP Med. Computer Sys. v. United States,
(2d Cir. 2007).

St. Pierre

(1981)); see

480 F.3d 621, 624

Once a final judgment has been entered on the

merits of a case, that judgment will bar any subsequent
litigation by the same parties, or those in privity with the
parties, concerning the transaction or series of connected
transactions out of which the first action arose.
The doctrine of res judicata applies to pro se
litigants.

Yeiser v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 535 F. Supp. 2d 413,

426 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
WL 31886175, at *8

(citing Pena v. Travis, No. 01-CV-8534, 2002
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2008)); see also

Cieszkowska v. Gray Line N.Y., 295 F.3d 204, 205-06 (2d Cir.
2002)

(affirming district court's res judicata dismissal of an

in forma pauperis action previously dismissed for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

§

1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii)).

5

Here,

plaintiff has alleged claims that arise out of the same nucleus
of facts as those she alleged in two previous actions, both of
which this court dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and the doctrines of
See Manko v. Steinhardt, 11-

sovereign and judicial immunity.

CV-S430 (filed Oct. 31, 2011, dismissed Jan. 24, 2012), and
Manko v. Steinhardt, 11-CV-S103 (filed Oct. 17, 2011, dismissed
Jan. 24, 2012).

Therefore, this action is barred by the

doctrine of res judicata.
Furthermore, even if this action were not barred by
the doctrine of res judicata, it would be dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
and the doctrines of sovereign and judicial immunity.
IV.

Fi1ing Injunction

In Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000)
(per curiam), the Second Circuit upheld the district court's
authority to issue a filing injunction when "a plaintiff
abuse[s] the process of the Courts to harass and annoy others
with meritless, frivolous, vexatious or repetitive .
proceedings." (internal quotations and citations omitted).
also Pandozy v.

See

Tobey, No. 07-CV-4897, 2009 WL 1674409, at *2

(2d Cir. June 16, 2009); Williams v. NYC Hous. Auth., No. 06-CV-

6

5473, 2008 WL 5111105, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2008).
it is "[t]he unequivocal rule in this circuit

However,

. that the

district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant
sua sponte without providing the litigant with notice and an
opportunity to be heard."
Motor Vehicles,

Iwachiw v. New York State Dep't of

396 F.3d 525, 529 (2d Cir. 2005)

v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208

(quoting Moates

(2d Cir. 1998)).

The court has considered plaintiff's litigation
history and her persistence in seeking this court's intervention
in state court matters, and notifies plaintiff that similar
future filings will likely subject her to a filing injunction.
See Safir v. United States Lines, Inc.,

792 F.2d 19, 24

(2d Cir.

1986) .
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint filed in forma
pauperis is dismissed on the basis of res judicata.
§

1915 (e) (2) (B) (i)

28 U.S.C.

Furthermore, the court notifies plaintiff

that if she files any further frivolous actions challenging
state court decisions and naming defendants against whom claims
cannot be sustained, the court is likely to enter an Order
barring the acceptance of any future in forma pauperis
complaints without first obtaining leave of the court to do so.

7

28 U.S.C.

§

1651; see e.g., In re Martin-Trigona,

227-29 (2d Cir. 1993)

9 F.3d 226,

(discussing various sanctions courts may

impose upon vexatious litigants).
The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1915(a) (3)

that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good
faith.
(1962).

See Coppedge v. United States, 369

u.s.

438, 444-45

The Clerk of the court is respectfully requested to

serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on plaintiff and note
service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 17, 2012
Brooklyn, New York

/s/
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York

8