Belton v. UPS
Filing
4
ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached, Plaintiff's application for leave to file the instant in forma pauperis ("IFP") complaint is denied. The Court's order barring Plaintiff from filing future IFP complaints with out first seeking the Court's leave remains in effect. 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 IFP status is denied for purposes of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 7/10/2019. (Nadig, Alok)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
LOVELL BELTON,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
19-MC-1695 (PKC) (LB)
- against UPS (Postal Delivery Service),
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
LOVELL BELTON,
Plaintiff,
- against -
19-MC-1696 (PKC) (LB)
KATHERINE ROBERTS (DOE); LORI F.
WHARTON (DOE); REGINALD (ROCKY)
DOE; THE PONDEROSA TWINS,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------x
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
On August 31, 2007, the Honorable District Judge Raymond Dearie barred Plaintiff Lovell
Belton (“Plaintiff”) from filing any future actions in this Court without first obtaining leave to do
so. Belton v. Horn, No. 07-CV-2731, slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651).
On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed motions seeking permission to file the above-captioned in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) complaints and applications to proceed IFP. The actions are consolidated solely
for the purpose of this Order. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff is denied leave to file these
IFP complaints.
Plaintiff’s submissions do not provide any valid reason to allow the proposed complaints
to proceed. In the first action, Belton v. UPS, No. 19-MC-1695 (PKC), Plaintiff’s submissions are
incomprehensible, referencing, among other things, “felonious/criminal enactment against
1
plaintiff,” plagiarism, and human trafficking, without any particularized factual allegations
(Compl., at ECF 1 6.) This complaint seeks one million dollars in damages. (Id. at ECF 5.) In the
second action, Belton v. Roberts, No. 19-MC-1696, Plaintiff seeks damages from a state criminal
court judge (the Honorable Katherine Roberts), a Rikers Island Corrections Officer (Lori F.
Wharton), “Reginald (Rocky) (Doe),” and “the Ponderosa Twins” (Compl., at ECF 2–4), but he
does not make any coherent allegation with respect to any of these defendants (see id. at ECF 6,
8). This second complaint seeks “3rd effect 3x relief three zillion dollars/whatever seems to be
the means to stalking + the mishaps to [h]iding behind law.” (Id. at ECF 7.)
Plaintiff’s submissions to this Court do not provide any valid reason to allow these actions
to proceed. Thus, Plaintiff’s applications for leave to file the instant IFP complaints are denied.
The Court’s order barring Plaintiff from filing future IFP complaints without first seeking the
Court’s leave remains in effect. 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 IFP status is denied for
purposes of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962). The Clerk of
Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close these cases.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: July 10, 2019
Brooklyn, New York
1
“ECF” refers to the “Page ID” number generated by the Court’s CM/ECF docketing
system and not the document’s internal pagination.
2
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?