Lamb et al v. Cuomo et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a plausible claim. Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT WITHIN THIRTY ( 30) DAYS WHY AN ORDER BARRING THEM FROM FILING ANY NEW COMPLAINT RELATING TO ELECTRO MAGNETIC WAVES AND THE COVERT IMPLANTATION OF MONITORING DEVICES SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED. Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file an affidavit in accordance with this Order to Show Cause will lead to the entry of an order barring Plaintiffs from filing any new complaint relating to this issue and the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to return to Plaintiffs, without filing, any such action. Plaintiffs are cautioned that, should they file another action relating to this issue, it is within the Court's authority to consider imposing sanctions upon them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
67; 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, should Plaintiffs seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiffs and to mark this case CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 12/19/2016. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
DEBORAH LAMB, JOHN MECCA, as
sovereign people of the United
States,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE
16-CV-6568(JS)(AKT)

-against-

ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor for NYS;
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General
for NYS; HOWARD A. ZUCKER, Public Health
Commissioner for NYS; ANNE MARIE T.
SULLIVAN, Mental Health Commissioner
for NYS; JANET DIFIORE, Chief Judge and
Head of the New York State Court System;
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, municipality;
STEVEN BELLONE, Suffolk County Executive;
THOMAS J. SPOTA, Suffolk County District
Attorney; ANNEMARIE CSORNY, acting
Director of Suffolk County Mental Hygiene;
DR. JAMES L. TOMARKEN, Suffolk County
Commissioner of Public Health; JOHN F.
O’NEILL, Suffolk County Commissioner of
Social Services; TIMOTHY D. SINI, Suffolk
County Police Commissioner; VINCENT F. DEMARCO,
Suffolk County Sheriff; JUDITH A. PASCALE,
Suffolk County Clerk; and JOHN DOES #1-20,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:
Deborah Lamb, pro se
John Mecca, pro se
119 Whittier Drive
Kings Park, NY 11754
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On November 28, 2016, pro se plaintiffs Deborah Lamb and
John Mecca (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed an voluminous Complaint

and exhibits (totaling over five hundred pages) alleging fantastic
claims against fourteen (14) named defendants, all of whom are
public officials of New York State or the County of Suffolk.
Plaintiffs paid the Court’s $400 filing fee at the time they filed
the Complaint.

For the reasons that follow, the Complaint is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
for failure to allege a plausible claim for relief.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ voluminous Complaint is comprised of 486
pages with

an

additional

80

pages

of

exhibits.

Plaintiffs’

jurisdictional statement alone is seven pages and includes citation
to Federal statutory law, United States Supreme Court and Federal
Appellate Court cases, the Nuremberg Code, and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

(Compl. at 27-34.)

To the best that this Court

can discern from the Plaintiffs’ voluminous submission, Plaintiffs
believe

that

they

have

been

“covertly

surgically

altered

by

installation of implanted devices . . . into Plaintiffs’ bodies
causing egregious effects of punishment upon plaintiffs.”

(Compl.

at 3.) Plaintiffs allege that they have evidence “that prove there
are

devices

inside

plaintiffs’

bodies,

there

are

scars

on

plaintiffs from covert surgery, electrical energy tests and other
facts prove plaintiffs have been implanted with devices . . . .
(Compl. at 3.)

According to the Complaint, New York State laws
2

“allow

for

secret

adjudications

and

subsequent

secret

surgery and egregious treatment as punishment . . . .”
3.)

covert

(Compl. at

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants “sanctioned covert surgery

that installed aversive devices into plaintiffs’ bodies . . . .”
(Compl. at 4.)
fanciful,

Plaintiffs’ lengthy, rambling allegations are

disjointed,

and

nonsensical.

The

gravamen

of

Plaintiffs’ claims is that New York State laws authorize these
secret,

unauthorized

unconstitutional.

“experimental”

procedures

and

are

thus

(Compl. at 2-3, 12, 19, 21, 41, 88-89 and

passim.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs present fifty-three
claims for relief (Compl. 378-477), and seek, inter alia, an order
enjoining Defendants to “immediately cause to cease all treatment,
experiments and all sanctions upon plaintiffs . . .” (Compl. at
477), as well as an order directing that any “electromagnetic,
acoustic or other methodology used to affect plaintiffs must be
immediately turned off and removed to a distance unable to affect
plaintiffs forever wherever they go in the United States and the
entire world . . .” (Compl. at 480).

Plaintiffs also seek an order

compelling Defendants to “give plaintiffs all information as to the
exact position of all and any in vivo devices anywhere within the
plaintiffs’ entire bodies and brains, including within or on the
dermis.”
3

DISCUSSION
I.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint
Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro se

plaintiff liberally. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537
F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197,
200 (2d Cir. 2004).

However, a complaint must plead sufficient

facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955,
1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).

“A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.

Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (citation omitted).

The

plausibility standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that
a defendant has acted unlawfully.”

Id. at 678; accord Wilson v.

Merrill Lynch & Co., 671 F.3d 120, 128 (2d Cir. 2011).

While

“‘detailed factual allegations’” are not required, “[a] pleading
that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”

Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Further, a district court has the inherent power to
dismiss a case, sua sponte, if it determines that the action is
frivolous

or

the

court

lacks

jurisdiction
4

over

the

matter.

Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362,
363-364 (2d Cir. 2000).

“An action is frivolous if it lacks an

arguable basis in law or fact--i.e., where it is ‘based on an
indisputably

meritless

legal

theory’

or

contentions [which] are clearly baseless.’”

presents

‘factual

Scanlon v. Vermont,

423 F. App’x 78, 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (quoting Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1832, 104 L. Ed.
2d

338

(1989)

(alteration

in

original));

see

also

Denton

v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L. Ed. 2d
340 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the
wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable
facts available to contradict them.”).
Here, as is readily apparent, the Complaint is nothing
more

than

Plaintiffs’

cognizable claim.

delusions

and

does

not

set

forth

any

Given that Plaintiffs have filed a frivolous

Complaint, it is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
II.

Leave to Amend
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that a party shall be given leave to amend “when justice
so requires.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).

“[W]hen addressing a pro

se complaint, a district ‘court should not dismiss without granting
leave to amend

at least once when a liberal reading of the
5

complaint
stated.’”

gives

any

indication

that

a

valid

claim

might

be

Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir. 2002)

(quoting Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991)).
Nevertheless,

“[l]eave

to

amend,

though

liberally

granted, may properly be denied for: ‘undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to
the opposing

party

by

virtue

futility of amendment, etc.’”

of

allowance

of

the

amendment,

Ruotolo v. City of N.Y., 514 F.3d

184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182,
83 S. Ct. 227, 230, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962)).

“If the underlying

facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper
subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test
his claim on the merits.”

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.

However, if

amendment would be futile, i.e., if it could not withstand a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), leave to amend may be denied.
See Lucente v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir.
2002).
Construing

Plaintiffs’

Complaint

liberally,

and

interpreting it as raising the strongest arguments it suggests,
Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994), the Court finds
that Plaintiffs’ allegations rise to the level of the irrational.
Accordingly, the Court declines to afford Plaintiffs an opportunity
6

to further amend the Complaint given that the deficiencies therein
are not such that could be cured by amendment.
III. Litigation Injunction
Under the All Writs Act, a federal court “may issue all
writs

necessary

or

appropriate

in

aid

of

their

respective

jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

The All Writs Act “grants district courts the

power, under certain circumstances, to enjoin parties from filing
further lawsuits.”
261 (2d Cir. 1999).

MLE Realty Assocs. v. Handler, 192 F.3d 259,
Those circumstances include cases where a

litigant engages in the filing of repetitive and frivolous suits.
See Malley v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 1997)
(per curiam) (filing injunction may issue if numerous complaints
filed are based on the same events); In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d
226, 227-28 (2d Cir. 1993).
the

courts

and

parties

Such an injunction, while protecting

from

frivolous

litigation,

should

be

narrowly tailored so as to preserve the right of access to the
courts. In addition, the Court must provide plaintiff with notice
and an opportunity to be heard before imposing a filing injunction.
Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam).
Here, Plaintiffs have filed at least six previous pro se
complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York relating to electro magnetic waves and covert
7

monitoring devices.1

Plaintiffs’ instant action, together with

docket numbers 01-CV-4506, 04-CV-4964, 06-CV-3492, 07-CV-3704, 07CV-3705, and 09-CV-1389 suggest that Plaintiffs may file a new
action concerning the alleged covert implantation of monitoring
devices.

Indeed, Plaintiffs were warned that similar, future

complaints will not be tolerated.
09-CV-1389, at 6-8.)

(See May 22, 2009 Mem. & Order,

There, the Court cautioned that, pursuant to

the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a):
[S]ince their repeated filings relate to
similar facts and issues, some of which have
already been found to be frivolous, further
filings of any complaint based upon the same
facts and issues relating to the alleged
implantation of electro magnetic devices may
result in the issuance of an order prohibiting
Plaintiffs from filing any future lawsuits in
this Court without first obtaining leave from
the Court. In addition, the Court may direct
the Clerk of Court to return to Plaintiffs,
without filing, any such action that is
received without a clear application seeking
leave to file . . . .
(See May 22, 2009 Mem. & Order, 09-CV-1389, at 7-8.)

Undeterred,

Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint.
The Court has an “obligation to protect the public and

1

See Mecca v. Suffolk Cty. Police Dep’t, 01-CV-4506 (E.D.N.Y.
filed July 6, 2001); Lamb v. U.S.A., et al., 04-CV-4964 (E.D.N.Y.
filed Nov. 16, 2004); Mecca v. U.S. Government, 06-CV-3492
(E.D.N.Y. filed July 17, 2006);Lamb v. U.S.A., 07-CV-3704
(E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 4, 2007); Lamb v. U.S.A., 07-CV-3705
(E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 4, 2007); Lamb v. Off. of the Governor for
N.Y., et al., 09-CV-1389 (E.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 3, 2009).
8

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 quotation marks, citations, and
alteration

omitted).

The

Court

is

especially

cognizant

of

Plaintiffs’ pro se status and has considered their Complaint in as
positive light as possible.

Nonetheless, the Court again warns

Plaintiffs that similar, future complaints will not be tolerated.
Given Plaintiffs’ litigation history, together with the fact that
they have been warned that the continued filing of complaints
relating to electro magnetic waves may lead to the entry of an
order barring the acceptance of any future complaint based on such
claims without first obtaining leave of Court to do so, the Court
now ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY AN ORDER BARRING THEM FROM FILING ANY NEW
COMPLAINT

RELATING

IMPLANTATION
Plaintiffs

OF

are

TO

ELECTRO

MONITORING
advised

that

MAGNETIC

WAVES

DEVICES

SHOULD

failure

to

file

AND

NOT
an

THE
BE

COVERT

ENTERED.

affidavit

in

accordance with this Order to Show Cause will lead to the entry of
an order barring Plaintiffs from filing any new complaint relating
to this issue and the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to
return to Plaintiffs, without filing, any such action.
9

Finally, Plaintiffs are cautioned that Rule 11 of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure applies to pro se litigants, see
Maduakolam v. Columbia Univ., 866 F.2d 53, 56 (2d Cir. 1989) (“Rule
11 applies both to represented and pro se litigants . . .”), and
should they file another action relating to these issues, it is
within the Court’s authority to consider imposing sanctions upon
them.

See FED. R. CIV. P. 11; In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254,

1262 (2d Cir. 1984) (a district court has “the power and the
obligation to protect the public and the efficient administration
of justice from [a vexatious litigant’s] litigious propensities”);
Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986) (“‘A
district court not only may but should protect its ability to carry
out its constitutional functions against the threat of onerous,
multiplicitous, and baseless litigation.’” (quoting Abdullah v.
Gatto, 773 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)).
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this
Order to Plaintiffs at their last known address and to file proof
of such service with the Court.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is
sua

sponte

DISMISSED

WITH

PREJUDICE

for

failure

to

state

a

plausible claim. Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE BY FILING AN
AFFIDAVIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY AN ORDER BARRING THEM FROM
10

FILING ANY NEW COMPLAINT RELATING TO ELECTRO MAGNETIC WAVES AND THE
COVERT IMPLANTATION OF MONITORING DEVICES SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED.
Plaintiffs

are

advised

that

failure

to

file

an

affidavit

in

accordance with this Order to Show Cause will lead to the entry of
an order barring Plaintiffs from filing any new complaint relating
to this issue and the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to
return to Plaintiffs, without filing, any such action.

Plaintiffs

are cautioned that, should they file another action relating to
this issue, it is within the Court’s authority to consider imposing
sanctions upon them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
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, should Plaintiffs seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such
status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal.

See Coppedge v.

United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21
(1962).
The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy
of this Order to the pro se Plaintiffs and to mark this case
CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.

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

December 19, 2016
Central Islip, New York
11