Pickering-George v. The City of NY, et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - ORDERED that John Pickering-George (adopted) John R. Daley, Jr., is enjoined from filing any new in forma pauperis action against the parties listed herein, in this Court without first obtaining leave of Court. The Clerk o f Court is directed to return to Mr. Pickering- George, without filing, any new in forma pauperis action against any of the above-named defendants or related defendants which is received without a separate application seeking leave to file. If the C ourt grants Mr. Pickering-George leave to file a new action, the civil action shall be filed and assigned a civil docket number. If leave to file is denied, Mr. Pickering-George's submission shall be filed on the Court's miscellaneous docke t. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit Plaintiff from filing an appeal of this Memorandum and Order; however, the court certifies pursuant to 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. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 11/18/2011. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
JOHN PICKERING-GEORGE, (adopted)
JOHN R. DALEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
11-CV-4199 (JS)(ETB)

-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, Human Resource
Administration, FAMILY INDEPENDENCE
ADMINISTRATION, Office of Legal Affairs,
BUREAU OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES,
Human Resources Administration,
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE ADMINISTRATION JOB
CENTER AGENCIES LOCATION, et al.,

Defendants.
----------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:
John Pickering-George, Pro Se
100 W. 174th Street
Apt. 6-D
Bronx, New York 10453
For Defendants:

No appearances

SEYBERT, District Judge:
By Order dated September 26, 2011, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s latest in forma pauperis Complaint against the City of
New

York,

Human

Resource

Administration,

Family

Independence

Administration, Office of Legal Affairs, Bureau of Administrative
Procedures,
Independence

Human

Resources

Administration

Administration,
Job

Center

and

the

Agencies

Family
Location

(collectively, “Defendants”) as frivolous and malicious pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and directed Plaintiff to show cause why
he should not be barred from filing any new in forma pauperis
complaints

concerning

his

requests

for

documents

from

the

Defendants herein or related to any of his four (4) prior cases in
this Court, without first obtaining leave of court.

MLE Realty

Assocs. v. Handler, 192 F.3d 259, 261 (2d Cir. 1999); Moates v.
Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); see also
Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005); Iwachi v.
N.Y. State Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525, 529 (2d Cir.
2005); In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 228 (2d Cir. 1993); Polur
v. Raffe, 912 F.2d 52, 57 (2d Cir. 1990); Sassower v. Sansverie,
885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed his response to the
Court’s Order to Show Cause.

Much like his Complaint, Plaintiff’s

response is incoherent and is largely comprised of numbered lists
of

unrelated

undersigned

legal
finds

terms.
that

he

Given
has

Plaintiff’s

failed

to

response,

demonstrate

litigation bar should not be entered at this time.

the

why

a

Accordingly,

for the reasons that follow, Plaintiff is barred from filing any
new complaints in this Court concerning his requests for documents
from any of the Defendants herein or related to any of his four (4)
prior cases in this Court, without first obtaining leave of court.
Plaintiff’s Litigation History
Since March 2010, Plaintiff has filed the following in
forma pauperis actions against the City of New York and various
other government agencies in this Court, all of which have been
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). Pickering-

2

George v. Brookhaven (N.Y.) Center, et al., No. 10-CV-1103 (JS)
(ETB)

(sua

Plaintiff

sponte

three

dismissed

opportunities

with
to

prejudice

file

a

after

coherent

affording

Complaint);

Pickering-George v. The City of New York, et al., No. 11-CV-0064
(JS) (ETB) (sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
(B)(ii)); Pickering-George v. Landlord Management, et al., No. 11CV-3273 (JS) (ETB) (sua sponte dismissed as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)); Pickering-George v. Internal Revenue
Service, et al., No. 11-CV-3636 (JS) (ETB) (sua sponte dismissed as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause
does not provide any basis to conclude that Plaintiff will stop
filing frivolous complaints against the City of New York or various
other government entities.

In fact, Plaintiff continues to do so

and has filed yet another such Complaint on September 29, 2011,
after the Court issued its Order to Show Cause.1

Plaintiff’s

actions demonstrate that the Court has no other recourse but to bar
Plaintiff from filing any new in forma pauperis complaint against
any

of

the

Defendants

named

in

any

of

his

prior

Complaints

concerning any of the conduct complained of in those actions

1

Plaintiff’s latest complaint names as defendants the U.S.
District Court, E.D.N.Y., Central Islip, the “United States
Agency”, and the “United States Official Courts and Judicial
System.” See 11-CV-4861 (JS)(ETB), Pickering-George v. U.S.
District Court, E.D.N.Y., Central Islip, et al.
3

without first obtaining leave of court.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that
(1) John Pickering-George (adopted) John R. Daley, Jr., is
enjoined from filing any new in forma
Brookhaven

(NY)

Center,

Sandy

pauperis action against

Pacello,

Wage

and

Investment

Director-Field Accounts Mgt., Ruben D. Priegues, Cynthia J. MealsVitelli, the Attorney General of the United States, the Internal
Revenue Service, the Chief Counsel, Eastern District of New York,
the City of New York, the Office of Legal Affairs City, the Human
Resources Administration, Family Independence Administration, Job
Center

Agencies

Location,

the

U.S.

District

Court,

E.D.N.Y.,

Central Islip, the United States Agency, United States Official
Courts and Judicial System or other related defendants in this
Court without first obtaining leave of Court;
(2) the Clerk of Court is directed to return to Mr. PickeringGeorge, without filing, any new in forma

pauperis action against

any of the above-named defendants or related defendants which is
received without a separate application seeking leave to file;
(3) if the Court grants Mr. Pickering-George leave to file a
new action, the civil action shall be filed and assigned a civil
docket number;
(4)

if

leave

to

file

is

denied,

Mr.

Pickering-George’s

submission shall be filed on the court’s miscellaneous docket. See

4

28 U.S.C. § 1651.
Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit Plaintiff
from filing an appeal of this Memorandum and Order; however, the
court certifies pursuant to

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).

SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

November
18 , 2011
Central Islip, New York

5