Meyers v. Mastro et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the above-captioned complaints are dismissed, without prejudice to the pending litigation in Meyers v. Health & Hospitals Corp., No. 14-CV-7448. Meyers is warned that the future filing of vexatious a nd frivolous litigation may result in sanctions, including a filing injunction. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 9/1/2016. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)

FILED

IN CL&AIC'I Cl'FICE
U.1. DlllTRIC1' COURT E.D.N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

* SEP - t 2016 *

BROOKLYN OFFICE
------------------------------------------------------------------x
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
15-CV-2387 (CBA) (LB)
- against MS. PAM BRIER, CEO, Maimonides Medical Center,
Defendant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------x
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
15-CV-2388 (CBA) (LB)
- against ATTORNEY SUANNE LINDER CHIACCHIARO,
Defendant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------x
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against15-CV-3568 (CBA)
OFFICE OF SHERIFF NEW YORK CITY,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------x
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against15-CV-4267 (CBA)
YMCA,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------x

------------------------------------------------------------------){
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against15-CV-4728 (CBA)
COMPTROLLER SCOTT STRINGER,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------){
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against15-CV-5069 (CBA)
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM BRATTON, and
COMMISSIONER RETIRED RAYMOND KELLY,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------){
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against15-CV-6716 (CBA)
INTERFAITH MEDICAL CENTER and KINGSBORO
PSYCHIATRIC CENTER,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------){
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against15-CV-6879 (CBA)
THE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------){
2

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against16-CV-1169 (CBA)
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JP; LEONARD B. AUSTIN;
ROBERT J. MILLER; and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against16-CV-1170 (CBA)
NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against16-CV-1343 (CBA)
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE NEW YORK
STATE and FELDMAN AND FELDMAN,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against16-CV-2204 (CBA)
McALOON AND FRIEDMAN,
Defendant.

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

3

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

COLONEL MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

16-CV-2497 (CBA)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM BRATTON,
The New York City Police Department,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
AMON, United States District Judge:

The above-captioned complaints filed by pro se plaintiff Maurice Maynard Meyers are
currently pending before the Court. Meyers's multiple requests to proceed in forrna pauperis
("IFP") are granted, but each of the above-captioned actions is dismissed.
BACKGROUND

Meyers has filed multiple complaints in this Court. 1 Many of his past and currently
pending cases challenge his involuntary commitment and medication. Similar claims were
previously dismissed in Meyers v. Health & Hosp. Coro., No. 12-CV-4450, and 13-CV-1258
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014). More recently, after a competency hearing in which Magistrate
Judge Lois Bloom found that it was not necessary to appoint a guardian ad !item pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), Meyers' s challenge to his involuntary commitment and
his medication over objection was again dismissed. Meyers v. Health & Hosp. Coro., No. 14-

1

See. e.g., In re Meyers, No. 13-MC-572 (CBA), 2013 WL 5502825 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2013) (describing
plaintiffs litigation history between 2009 and March 2013); Meyers v. Health & Hosp. Com .. et al., No. 13-CV1258, 2014 WL 4161975 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2014) (adopting March 28, 2014, Report and Recommendation, 2014
WL 4160796, granting defendants' motion to dismiss); In re Meyers, No. 14-MC-531 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014)
(acknowledging seven new submissions unaccompanied by the filing fee or requests to proceed IFP); Meyers v.
Bunyan, No. 14-CV-5212 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2014) (dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or request IFP status);
Meyers v. Office of the Mayor, No. 14-CV-7449 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2015) (dismissed as frivolous); Meyers v. Metro.
Transit Auth., No. 14-CV-7534 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2015) (dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or request IFP
status); In re Meyers, No. 14-MC-1691 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 9, 2015) (dismissing multiple new submissions as improperly
filed and frivolous); Meyers v. Ananthamoorthy, No. 15-CV-6696 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016) (granting voluntary
dismissal); Meyers v. Maynard, 15-CV-3603 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2016) (dismissing seven cases as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim).

4

CV-7448) (E.D.N.Y. May 18, 2016) (describing Meyers's lengthy litigation history and finding
that Meyers had received New York's constitutionally sufficient safeguards related to his
involuntary commitment and medication and that his challenges to ongoing state-court
proceedings was barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971)).
Meyers has also mounted several challenges to "Kendra's Law," New York's Mental
Hygiene Law§ 9.60, which authorizes court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment ("AOT") for
certain individuals with mental illness, following specific criteria and procedures. The Court
permitted Meyers's facial challenge to this law to proceed under Docket Number 14-CV-7448.
See id. Meyers has also challenged New York City's policy for handling emotionally disturbed
persons ("EDP"). This claim is also proceeding in Docket Number l 4-CV-7448. See id.
PENDING COMPLAINTS

Each of the above-captioned complaints raises one or more of these specific claims
related to Meyers's mental-health treatment.
In Meyers v. Brier, No. 15-CV-2387, Meyers alleges "false admission into psychiatric
hospital," "false imprisonment," and "medication-over-objection." (15-CV-2387, D.E. # I at I.)
He states that "Carl Moncrieffe on April 10, 2015 [illegible] 'Ifl don't have an AOT Team and
that I don't receive an injection by the AOT team, he's going to call the N.Y.P.D. each time I
come to the house."' (M. at 4.) He states that he was removed from his residence at 232 East
23rd Street by police officers and emergency medical technicians "without due process - no
reason other than 9-1-1 call Laura Jean Maynard." (Id. at 2.)

In Meyers v. Chiacchiaro, No. 15-CV-2388, Meyers alleges "defamation of character,"
"psychiatric malpractice," and "no legal process service for court appearance," for which he
seeks "$50 million against Attorney Suanne Linder Chiacchiaro." (l 5-CV-2388, D.E. # I at I.)
Attached to this complaint is a copy of a Petition filed in the Supreme Court of New York,
Kings County, by Maimonides Medical Center for an order authorizing the administration of
5

medication to Meyers over his objection. The Petition is signed by Suanne Linder Chiacchiaro,
counsel for the hospital, and includes supporting affirmations from two doctors and a proposed
treatment plan. (Id. at 6-24.)
On March 26, 2015, the Court received a submission from Meyers dated March 17,
2015, which was captioned for-and docketed in-both 15-CV-2387 and 15-CV-2388 (15-CV2387, D.E. # 7; 15-CV-2388, D.E. # 7.) The document names Maimonides Medical Center and
"[illegible] Attorney for Hospital" as defendants. Meyers states that he told "Attorney Roach M.H.L.S." to "tell the judge that I am waiting for the return of another copy of the F.B.I. reports
to come to court and represent myself. . . . This did not happen." (Id. at 2.) He attaches the
transcripts from state-court hearings held on March 19, 2015, and March 26, 2015. The
following details are taken from the transcripts.
When the hearing was first called on March 19, 2015, before the Honorable Carolyn
Wade, Lanielle D. Roach of Mental Hygiene Legal Services appeared on behalf of Meyers. Ms.
Roach told the court that Meyers did not want her to represent him at the proceeding and that he
wished to proceed prose. (D.E. # 7-1 at 2.) Ms. Chiacchiaro, representing Maimonides,
indicated that Meyers was not coming to court for the hearing that day. (Id.) The court
adjourned the hearing for one week, over the hospital's objection. (Id. at 3.) The court
indicated that if Meyers did not appear at the rescheduled hearing, the proceeding would
continue without him. (Id. at 5-6.)
When the hearing reconvened on March 26, 2015, Meyers did not appear. In his
absence, the court appointed Roach to represent him, over his noted objections. (Id. at 9.) The
court heard testimony from Dr. Jing Wang and Carl Moncriefe. Dr. Wang identified himself as
the attending psychiatrist on the fourth floor at Maimonides Medical Center's inpatient unit.

CM,. at 11.) Dr. Wang testified that the patient had a past history of multiple prior psychiatric
hospitalizations at Maimonides and at Kings County Hospital, (id. at 15); that he had been
6

admitted to Maimonides on an emergency basis on March 2, 2015, after a 9-1-1 call made by
family members, ili!.,. at 14-15); and that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid type,
(id. at 16). Dr. Wang testified that during the current admission, and in contrast to previous
admissions, Meyers was in a "delusional state" and "quite agitated" and threatened to bomb the
unit and shoot staff with an AK-47. (Id. at 16, 21.) Dr. Wang further testified that Meyers
refused to take any medication, including his blood-pressure medication, that he was not
allowing staff to take his vital signs, and that he was not taking showers or sleeping. (Id. at
17-18.)
Carl Moncriefe testified that he had known Meyers "on and off'' since he had been "in a
relationship with his sister 30 years ago" and that Meyers "was residing with [him] at 323 East
23rd Street." (Id. at 35.) He testified that he called 9-1-1 because Meyers had become "volatile
towards me that day [he] called" and that morning "was trashing his room, breaking things in
his room and that, before that he would start to decompensate." (Id. at 36.) Moncriefe further
testified that "when Maurice is on medication he's just great. ... But he had a script for
medication that he was supposed to have filled and [he] asked him, would [Meyers] like
[Moncriefe] to fill them? [Meyers] said no. And that from that day on he just went downhill."
(Id. at 37-38.)
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the medication override and signed
the order directing medication over Meyers's objection. (Id. at 45.)
In Meyers v. Office of Sheriff. et al., No. 15-CV-3568, Meyers describes an incident

from December 2004 in which he was picked up by deputy sheriffs on a "mental health warrant
or something close to it, for the A 0. T. Examination by Judge Anthony A Cutrona." ( 15-CV 3568, D.E. #1at1-2.) According to Meyers, a Dr. Asemona told him he did not need AOT, but
during the hearing, the Director of the A.0.T. Office at Woodhull Center stated, "The Report
from the A.O.T. Examination is not available." (Id. at 2.) Meyers states: "A.0.T. was granted
7

by Judge Cutrona." (Id.) Meyers alleges that he was picked up multiple times by the sheriff's
office. He seeks $800 million dollars in damages and an injunction against future action by the
Office of the Sheriff. (Id. at 1.)
Meyers v. YMCA, No. 15-CV-4267, also makes reference to "A.0.T. Kendra's Law."
(15-CV-4267, D.E. #1 at I.) It requests "free room" and "swimming pool to cure back injury in
physical therapy." (Id. at 2.)
Meyers v. Stringer, No. 15-CV-4728, seeks "five hundred million dollars total damages
paid to above recipient Maurice Maynard Meyers ... compensatory/punitive/nominal damages
from August 28, 1977 - to - May 30, 2015 for discharge from the Health and Hospitals
Corporation." (15-CV-4728, D.E. #1at2.) It requests damages to be paid to "MCM Business
Consultants Corporation" and "Mrs. Jane W. Rawling." (Id.) An attached notice requests "the
copy of the city laws regarding Notice of Claims Procedures and Forms to file[;] how to receive
funds paid to you from the Office of Comptroller from a[] civil lawsuit in federal court." (!Q... at
4.)

Meyers v. New York City Police Department. et al., No. 15-CV-5069, "seeks change in
E.D.P." (15-CV-5069, D.E. # 1 at I.) Meyers asserts that he has been in "fifteen different
psychiatric hospitals from February 4, 2001 to May 20, 2015." (Id. at 2.) This complaint also
includes references to "A.O.T. under Kendra's Law," the Bolshevik Revolution, and an
unspecified criminal offense from August 28, 1977. (Id. at 4-5.)
Meyers v. The Health and Hospitals Comoration. et al., No. 15-CV-6879, seeks damages
for "27 psychiatric hospitalizations" occurring between July 2004 and January 2009. (15-CV6879, D.E. # 1 at 1.) He alleges that he sustained permanent back and leg injuries and other
injuries in Unit #1 in September 2005. (Id. at 2.) This complaint also references AOT and
Kendra's Law, in addition to "full F.B.I. surveillance while living in the Greenpoint Hotel." (Id.
at 1.) Meyers seeks $10 billion in damages and states that he is "willing to settle out of court."
8

(Id. at 1-2.)
In Meyers v. Interfaith Medical Center. et al., No. 15-CV-6716, Meyers states that his
sister Laura Jean Maynard brought police to his apartment in February 2003. (l 5-CV-6716,
D.E. # 1 at 1.) He alleges that he was hospitalized at Interfaith Medical Center, or possibly
Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, from February 2003 to August 2003. (Id. at 2.) He also mentions
an FBI investigation at the Greenpoint Hotel. (Id.) He seeks $5 billion in damages. (Id.)
In Meyers v. New York State Attorney General, No. 16-CV-1170, Meyers alleges that the
State Attorney General "put my name [and] social security number [illegible] into the Kendra's
Law database in the New York State Attorney General Record." (l 6-CV-1170, D.E. # 1 at 2.)
He requests: "Please court-order the elimination of the Kendra's Law database- please eliminate
court order the AOT team[;] please eliminate Kendra's Law." (Id.) This complaint also seeks
"unlimited damages from New York State Attorney General on criminal behavior unbecoming
an elected Jaw enforcement officer" and mentions a certificate for the "MCM Business
Consultant Corporation." (Id. at I.)
In Meyers v. Appellate Division. et al., No. 16-CV-1169, Meyers apparently seeks to
cancel a court hearing in the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department.
(16-CV-1169, D.E. # I at 1.) He attaches an order from the Appellate Division denying a
motion for summary reversal, relieving assigned counsel, and appointing new counsel, Steven A.
Feldman. (Id. at 3-4.) Meyers failed to pay the filing fee or request to proceed IFP in this action.
In Meyers v. Attorney General's Office. et al., No. l 6-CV-1343, Meyers names Feldman
& Feldman as a defendant and alleges that Steven Feldman "never showed, never called, no

letters, no communication." (16-CV-1343, D.E. # I at 3.) He attaches a fax that he sent, prose,
to the Appellate Division, along with the letter he received in response stating that his pro se
papers were being returned because he was represented by counsel. (Id. at 4-9.)
In Meyers v. McAloon and Friedman, No. 16-CV-2204, Meyers sues another law firm
9

for "their role in court-ordered medication-over-objection." (16-CV-2204, D.E. # 1 at 1.) He
requests that they be investigated by the FBI and seeks $900 million in damages. (Id. at 1-2.)
He also seeks a "cease and desist" order "against further court applications." (Id. at 2.) Meyers
filed several supplemental submissions in that case. A submission received on May 5, 2016,
encloses documents related to involuntary retention and a medication-over-objection hearing
scheduled for March 2016. (16-CV-2204, D.E. # 4.) A submission labeled "Points and
Authorities" and received on May 11, 2016, states: "Plaintiff now comes to identify each and
every application for medication-over-objection." (16-CV-2204, D.E. # 5.) In another
submission, received on June 3, 2016, Meyers states that he is losing favorable witnesses and
requests "that the psychiatrist in question be arrested for fraud and perjury in court." (16-CV2204, D.E. # 7 at 1-2.)
In Meyers v. Bratton. et al., No. 16-CV-2497, Meyers challenges the way the NYPD
handles psychiatric calls. He requests that "each 9-1-1 psychiatric call be investigated on the
scene - true or false - as to the mental condition of the subject." (l 6-CV-2497, D.E. # 1 at 1.)
He requests a court order providing that "each precinct of the New York City Police Department
have a psychiatric evaluation team that comes to the scene to give a psychiatric interview to
determine if you need to go further in the system or be released." (Id. at 2.) To date, Meyers has
failed to pay the filing fee or request to proceed IFP in this action.
Collectively, these 13 cases raise the same mental-health issues that were advanced in
No. 14-CV-7448. The Court's May 18, 2016, Order dismissed all ofMeyers's claims related to
his involuntary commitment and medication over objection but permitted his claims challenging
the constitutionality of Kendra's Law and New York City's policy regarding psychiatric calls to
proceed. The subsequent complaints do not submit any new factual information or posit new
legal arguments. As no useful purpose would be served by the litigation of these duplicate
actions, the above-captioned complaints are dismissed without prejudice to the litigation
10

pending under Docket Number 14-CV-7448. See Curtis v. Citibank. N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138
(2d Cir. 2000) ("As part of its general power to administer its docket, a district court may stay or
dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit.").
WARNING AGAINST FRIVOLOUS FILING

In addition to the dozens of actions Meyers has filed in this Court, he has also submitted
a multitude of letters, motions, affidavits, and other documents reiterating the same series of
claims. The vast majority of his claims have been or now will be dismissed. Only three of his
current claims-his facial challenge to Kendra's Law, his challenge to the New York City Police
Department's policy for handling emotionally disturbed persons, and his claim for social
security benefits-have advanced past the Court's initial review for frivolity under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915.

The federal courts have limited resources. Frequent frivolous filings work to diminish
the ability of the courts to manage their dockets for the efficient administration of justice. "The
district courts have the power and the obligation to protect the public and the efficient
administration of justice from individuals who have a history of litigation entailing vexation,
harassment and needless expense to other parties and an unnecessary burden on the courts and
their supporting personnel." Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff is warned that the future filing of vexatious and
frivolous litigation may result in sanctions, including the imposition of an injunction prohibiting
him from making future filings seeking IFP status without leave of the Court. See In re
Sassower, 20 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 1994) ("With respect to civil litigation, courts have
recognized that the normal opportunity to initiate lawsuits may be limited once a litigant has
demonstrated a clear pattern of abusing the litigation process by filing vexatious and frivolous
complaints.").

11

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the above-captioned complaints are dismissed, without
prejudice to the pending litigation in Meyers v. Health & Hospitals Coro., No. 14-CV-7448. 2
Meyers is warned that the future filing of vexatious and frivolous litigation may result in
sanctions, including a filing injunction. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for purpose
of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

s/Carol Bagley Amon

Dated: September l, 2016
Brooklyn, New York

. ckol Bagley Amon
United States District Judge

2

Meyers v. Bratton. et al., No. 16-CV-2497, and Meyers v. Appellate Division et al., No. 16-CV-1169,

were not properly filed, as Meyers did not submit the filing fee or an IFP application. These cases are dismissed for

failure to pay the filing fee.

12