In the Matter of InJah Tafari

Filing 1

ORDER - That Tafari shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date ofthis Order, show cause, in writing, why he should not be enjoined from anyfurther filings in the Northern District of New York without leave of the ChiefJudge. That, if Taf ari does not fully comply with this Order, thecourt will issue a subsequent order, without further explanation, permanently enjoining Tafari from filing a pleading or document of any kindin any future case in this District without leave of the court. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/19/2012. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________
IN RE: INJAH TAFARI,

1:12-mc-42
(GLS)

Respondent.
_________________________________
ORDER
After examining the District Court’s docket, it appears that
respondent Injah Tafari has engaged in a pattern of abuse of the judicial
process, and thus, should be enjoined from filing future cases in this
District without permission from the Chief Judge. However, before doing
so, Tafari must be given an opportunity to show cause why an anti-filing
injunction should not be entered.
It is well settled that “[a] district court may, in its discretion, impose
sanctions against litigants who abuse the judicial process.” Shafii v. British
Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1996). Where a litigant persists in
the filing of vexatious and frivolous suits, it may be appropriate to place
certain limitations on the litigant’s future access to the courts. See Hong
Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Iwachiw v. N.Y.
State Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525, 528 (2d Cir. 2005)); see also
Shafii, 83 F.3d at 571 (“The filing of repetitive and frivolous suits

constitutes the type of abuse for which an injunction forbidding further
litigation may be an appropriate sanction.”). Before imposing such
limitations, the court should consider:
(1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it
entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the
litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant
have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3)
whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the
litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has
posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel;
and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the
courts and other parties.
Iwachiw, 396 F.3d at 528 (quoting Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24
(2d Cir. 1986)).
After carefully reviewing the publicly available court records, the court
concludes that, unless he shows cause otherwise, Tafari should be
enjoined from filing future lawsuits without leave of the Chief Judge. To
date, Tafari has filed twenty-nine (29) actions in this District, thirteen of
which were filed just last year.1 Indeed, on June 4, 2012 alone, Tafari filed
a letter motion for a Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order in

1

See case nos. 00-cv-1859; 01-cv-663; 01-cv-1600; 07-cv-654; 08-cv-1060; 10-cv505; 10-cv-577; 10-cv-790; 10-cv-1035; 10-cv-1065; 11-cv-58; 11-cv-81; 11-cv-263; 11-cv433; 11-cv-679; 11-cv-694; 11-cv-1342; 11-cv-1390; 11-cv-1422; 11-cv-1429; 11-cv-1446; 11cv-1447; 11-cv-1448; 11-cv-1464; 11-cv-1476; 12-cv-269; 12-cv-662; 12-cv-703; 12-cv-985.

2

seventeen (17) of his pending cases, (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 14, 11-cv-1447),
despite the fact that he filed a nearly identical motion in twelve of the cases
one month earlier, (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 8, 11-cv-1447). Moreover, Tafari
has accumulated well over three strikes for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g), (see Dkt. No. 6 at 3-4, 12-cv-703), yet has repeatedly sought to
usurp the PLRA by repeating nearly identical claims of imminent danger,
(compare Compl. ¶¶ 8-10, Dkt. No. 1, 11-cv-1429, with Compl. ¶¶ 11-13,
Dkt. No. 1, 11-cv-1390), and by converting cases filed under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 to cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 44, 10-cv-790).
In light of his litigation history, the court concludes that Tafari can
only be estopped from pursuing frivolous claims by a more severe sanction
than dismissing his actions. To this end, four of the five factors discussed
in Iwachiw, 396 F.3d at 528, are unequivocally satisfied here: (1) Tafari has
a long history of vexatious and harassing litigation in this District; (2)
Tafari’s lawsuits are typically characterized by unfounded civil rights
violations upon which he has no good faith expectation of prevailing; (3)
Tafari’s baseless complaints have occasioned a tremendous waste of time
and resources; and (4) Tafari’s cavalier disregard for court directives and

3

orders renders any lesser sanction inadequate.2
Notwithstanding the overwhelming support for an anti-filing injunction,
fairness dictates that Tafari be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
See Iwachiw, 396 F.3d at 529. As such, he shall have fourteen (14) days
from the date of this Order to show cause, in writing, why he should not be
enjoined from any further filings in the Northern District of New York
without leave of the court.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Tafari shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of
this Order, show cause, in writing, why he should not be enjoined from any
further filings in the Northern District of New York without leave of the Chief
Judge; and it is further
ORDERED that, if Tafari does not fully comply with this Order, the
court will issue a subsequent order, without further explanation,
permanently enjoining Tafari from filing a pleading or document of any kind
in any future case in this District without leave of the court; and it is further

2

As to the fifth factor—whether the litigant is represented by counsel—the courts of
this District have heretofore exercised a great deal of restraint in light of Tafari’s pro se status.
The time for patience has passed. While a litigant’s pro se status may excuse innocent
mistakes, it does not provide a license to engage in frivolous and harassing litigation.

4

ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Tafari
by certified mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 19, 2012
Albany, New York

5