Purisima v. Zheng et al

Filing 5

ORDER: Plaintiff's 1 request for leave to file a new action and accompanying 3 motion to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED. The court's prior Order barring Plaintiff from filing future in forma pauperis complaints without first seeking the court's leave remains in effect. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 7/28/2014. (c/m to pro se) (Lee, Tiffeny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ANTON PURISIMA,
ORDER

Plaintiff,

14-MC-876 (NGG)

-againstEDDIE ZHENG, NAFANG MO, PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC), WANG
DONG, SUN KAILIANG, WEN )(IN YU,
HUANG ZHEN YU, HUANG ZHEN YU, GU
CHUNHUI, EDWARD J. SNOWDEN, DOES
1-1.3 BILLION,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
On January 31, 2012, in response to the filing of multiple frivolous and duplicative
actions by Plaintiff Anton Purisima, this court barred Plaintiff from filing any new in forma
pauperis complaints in this court without first seeking the court's leave. See Purisima v. )(ilai,
No. 11-CV-5523 (NGG), 2012 WL 293772 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012), reconsideration denied,
2012 WL 669045 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2012). On July 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Proposed
Complaint (Dkt. 2), accompanied by a request for leave to file a new action (Dkt. 1) and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 3).
Plaintiff's request for leave fails to provide the court with any valid reason to allow the
proposed action to go forward. Plaintiff argues that the Proposed Complaint should be allowed
to proceed as it is "related" to his pending case, Purisima v. Tiffany Entertainment, et al., No. 09CV-3502 (NGG). To the extent that his Proposed Complaint reiterates substantially the same
allegations raised in his "underlying" action, the claims plainly are duplicative. Moreover, to the

extent that Plaintiff seeks to raise new claims, his allegations are rambling and baseless. For
instance, Plaintiff alleges that the People's Republic of China executed "Three (3) plus One (1)
Filipinos" as retaliation against Plaintiff. (Proposed Compl. at 32.) He further asserts that China
harvested the organs of the aforementioned individuals and "transferred these harvested organs
to waiting rich Chinese." (Id. at 33.) In addition, Plaintiffs Proposed Complaint includes a
letter directed to Edward Snowden, in which Plaintiff seeks damages for any and all actions that
Mr. Snowden is alleged to have taken against the United States and challenges Mr. Snowden to a
game of poker at a casino of Mr. Snowden's choosing. (Id. at 21-30.) Finally, Plaintiff seeks to
recover ten duodecillion dollars in damages (llL. at 56), which is a one followed by thirty-seven
zeroes and equates to roughly 5.8 x 1023 times the gross domestic product of the United States.
Plaintiffs allegations are frivolous and duplicative. Plaintiff demonstrates that neither
his lack of success in filing these submissions nor the warnings of this court will deter him from
filing frivolous and repetitive proceedings. See Purisima v. Xilai, et al., No. 11-CV-5523
(NGG), 2011WL6329831, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2011) (dismissing Plaintiffs claims as
frivolous and duplicative of his previous actions); Purisima v. Xilai, et al., No. 12-MC-748
(NGG) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2013) (denying Plaintiff leave to file duplicative suit); Purisima v.
Zemin, et al., No. 12-MC-755 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2013) (same).
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for leave to file a new action and accompanying motion
to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED. The court's prior Order barring Plaintiff from filing
future in forma pauperis complaints without first seeking the court's leave remains in effect. The
Clerk of Court is directed to return without filing and without judicial order any future in forma
pauperis complaint submitted by Plaintiff that does not comply with the Court's filing injunction.

2

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 the purpose
of an appeal. CoP.Peflge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this action
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
foicttoLAS

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July2C, 2014

o. GARAUFI~

United States District Judge

\
3