Bascom v. Brookdale Hospital

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, pltff's 4 applications for leave to file the instant in forma pauperis actions are denied. Furthermore, pltff is hereby warned that further submissions seeking leave to file similar frivolous or malicious actions shall re sult in the imposition of sanctions in the amount of $1500.00. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. (Terminating 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Terminating 3 Motion for Permanent Injunction) Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 6/11/2012. c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

FILED

IN CL.ERK'S OFFICE
us 0\STA\CT COUFIT Eli

*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------)(

JUN 1 2 20\2

~13R00Kl.YN OFFICE

EGLON BASCOM,
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
12-MC-0363 (SLT)

Plaintiff,
-againstTHE BROOKDALE HOSPITAL
Defendant.

----------------------------------------------------------------)(
EGLON BASCOM,
Plaintiff,
12-MC-0371 (SLT)

-againstTHE BROOKDALE HOSPITAL
Defendant.

----------------------------------------------------------------){
TOWNES, United States District Judge.
By Order dated August 26,2010, Judge Allyne R. Ross enjoined prose plaintiff Eglon
Bascom "from filing any new in forma pauperis action against Brookdale Hospital or related to
his prior residency at Brookdale Hospital in this Court without first obtaining leave of Court."
Bascom v. Brookdale Hospital, No. 10-CV-3378 (ARR). Judge Ross noted that plaintiff had
filed five previous actions against Brookdale Hospital, one in 2004 and four in 2010; all were
dismissed and plaintiff received several warnings.
Since the injunction was ordered, plaintiff has sought leave to file a new in forma

pauperis action against Brookdale Hospital related to his prior residency there on

1

I

four occasions: Bascom v. The Brookdale Hospital, 11-mc-614 (SLT); Bascom v. Brookdale
Hospital, 11-mc-630 (SLT); Bascom v. Brookdale Hospital, 11-mc-652 (SLT); Bascom v.
Brookdale Hospital, 12-mc-343 (SLT). Each time leave was denied.
On May 30, 2012 and June 1, 2012, eight and ten days, respectively, after leave to file
was denied in Bascom v. Brookdale Hospital, 12-mc-343 (SLT), plaintiff filed the instant
complaints and the obligatory requests for leave to file. In these pleadings, plaintiff continues his
pattern of vexatious litigation against Brookdale Hospital with regard to his prior residency.
Accordingly, plaintiff's applications for leave to file the in forma pauperis actions are DENIED.
Sanctions
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may be sanctioned
for pleadings "presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or,
needlessly increase the cost of litigation." Chambers v. NASCO. Inc., 501 U.S. 32,42-52 (1991)
(district court has inherent authority to sanction parties appearing before it for acting in bad faith,
vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons). "[B]efore sanctions are imposed, a prose
litigant must be 'adequately warned of the consequences which may result from this behavior."'
Shahid v. Ridgewood-Bushwich Senior Citizen's Council, No. CV-03-4949, 2005 WL 1009549,
'I (E.DN.Y. Apr. 26, 2005) (quoting Golub v. Univ. of Chicago, Nos. 87 Civ. 2891, 88 Civ.
0597, 1992 WL 333641, '4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 1992)); Daniel v. Safir, 135 F. Supp. 2d 367,379
(E.D.N.Y. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. ll(c)(3).

The Court notes that plaintiff was informed in an

earlier order of the possibility of sanctions should he continue to file frivolous complaints. See
Bascom v. Brookdale Hospital, 10-CV-3052 (SLT), dkt no. 8 at 5-6.

2

Conclusion
Accordingly, plaintiffs applications for leave to file the instant in forma pauperis actions
are denied. Furthermore, plaintiff is hereby warned that further submissions seeking leave to file
similar frivolous or malicious actions shall result in the imposition of sanctions in the amount of
$1500.00.

See,~.

Malley v. Corporation Counsel of the City ofNew York, 9 Fed. Appx. 58,

59 (2d Cir. 2001) (affirming imposition of$1500 sanction on prose litigant). 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 and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962).

__.L2

SO ORDERED.

'
1 SANDRA L. TOWNES

United States District Judge
Dated:cfr~~~l~~· New York
~({ ,2012