Tafari v. Zerniak et al

Filing 34

Summary Order - ORDERED that Tafari's motions to amend (Dkt. Nos. 121, 124, 11-cv-694; Dkt. No. 24, 11-cv-1342; Dkt. No. 35, 11-cv-1390; Dkt. No. 21, 11-cv-1422; Dkt. No. 31, 11-cv-1429; Dkt. No. 32, 11-cv-1447; Dkt. No. 32, 11-cv-1464; Dkt. No. 28, 11-cv-1476; Dkt. No. 21, 12-cv-269; Dkt. No. 18, 12-cv-662; Dkt. No. 9, 12-cv-1062) are DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Tafari's motions for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 126, 11-cv-694; Dkt. No. 25, 11-cv-1342; Dkt. No. 36, 11-cv-1 390; Dkt. No. 22, 11-cv-1422; Dkt. No. 32, 11-cv-1429; Dkt. No. 33, 11-cv-1464; Dkt. No. 29, 11-cv-1476; Dkt. No. 22, 12-cv-269; Dkt. No. 19, 12-cv-662; Dkt. No. 10, 12-cv-1062) are DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is direc ted to reject, without further order of the court, any future motions to amend filed by Tafari in any of the above-captioned cases; and it is further ORDERED that Tafari's request for extension of time within which to pay the statutory filing fees (Dkt. No. 127, 11-cv-694; Dkt. No. 26, 11-cv-1342; Dkt. No. 37, 11-cv-1390; Dkt. No. 23, 11-cv-1422; Dkt. No. 33, 11-cv-1429; Dkt. No. 33, 11-cv-1447; Dkt. No. 34, 11-cv-1464; Dkt. No. 30, 11-cv-1476; Dkt. No. 23, 12-cv-269; Dkt. No. 20, 12-cv-662; Dkt. No. 11, 12-cv-1062) is GRANTED to the extent that he seeks an additional forty-five (45) days to pay the fees; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall STAY the above-captioned cases until the court directs otherwise; and i t is further ORDERED that if Tafari wishes to file a document or motion of any kind, he must, until advised otherwise, seek permission from the court to do so; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket and return any docum ent of any kind that is filed without leave of the court; and it is further ORDERED that unless Tafari pays the statutory filing fees on or before January 14, 2013, the court will dismiss any case in which the fee has not been paid. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/21/2012. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:11-cv-694
(GLS/ATB)

v.
HEATH BAKER et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:11-cv-1342
(GLS/ATB)

v.
DAVID ROCK et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:11-cv-1390
(GLS/ATB)

v.
DONALD UHLER et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:11-cv-1422
(GLS/ATB)

DONALD UHLER et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:11-cv-1429
(GLS/ATB)

v.
THEODORE ZERNIAK et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:11-cv-1446
(GLS/ATB)

v.
GARY GETTMAN et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:11-cv-1447
(GLS/ATB)

v.
JOSEPH BELLNIER et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
2

Plaintiff,

9:11-cv-1464
(GLS/ATB)

v.
MAUREEN BOSCO et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:11-cv-1476
(GLS/ATB)

v.
KEVEN SMITH et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:12-cv-269
(GLS/ATB)

v.
WILLIAM ALLEN et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:12-cv-662
(GLS/ATB)

v.
JASON FERRICK et al.,
3

Defendants.
_________________________________
INJAH TAFARI,
Plaintiff,

9:12-cv-1062
(GLS/ATB)

v.
DAVID BILOW et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
SUMMARY ORDER
On October 31, 2012, this court issued a Memorandum-Decision and
Order, which denied/revoked plaintiff pro se InJah Tafari’s in forma
pauperis (IFP) status in his twelve formerly-consolidated cases. (See
generally Dkt. No. 119, 11-cv-694.) Notwithstanding the court’s decision,
Tafari now seeks to amend his Complaints again, despite the fact that the
court specifically addressed—and rejected—his previous requests to do so.
(See Dkt. Nos. 121, 124, 11-cv-694; Dkt. No. 24, 11-cv-1342; Dkt. No. 35,
11-cv-1390; Dkt. No. 21, 11-cv-1422; Dkt. No. 31, 11-cv-1429; Dkt. No. 32,
11-cv-1447; Dkt. No. 32, 11-cv-1464; Dkt. No. 28, 11-cv-1476; Dkt. No. 21,
12-cv-269; Dkt. No. 18, 12-cv-662; Dkt. No. 9, 12-cv-1062.) Given that the
proposed amended Complaints continue to rely on allegations that have

4

already been deemed baseless, (see Dkt. No. 119 at 18-58, 11-cv-694),
and new allegations of recent events, (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 121, Attach. 2 ¶¶
23-30, 11-cv-694)—which are, for the reasons stated at length in the
court’s previous decisions, immaterial, (see Dkt. No. 119 n.15, 11-cv694)—Tafari’s motions to amend his Complaints are denied.
So too are Tafari’s motions for reconsideration. (See Dkt. No. 126,
11-cv-694; Dkt. No. 25, 11-cv-1342; Dkt. No. 36, 11-cv-1390; Dkt. No. 22,
11-cv-1422; Dkt. No. 32, 11-cv-1429; Dkt. No. 33, 11-cv-1464; Dkt. No. 29,
11-cv-1476; Dkt. No. 22, 12-cv-269; Dkt. No. 19, 12-cv-662; Dkt. No. 10,
12-cv-1062.) Not only does Tafari continue to put forth unsubstantiated,
and, in some instances manufactured, assertions, but he also fails to
identify a requisite basis for relief. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 10 ¶¶ 4-31, 12-cv1062); In re C-TC 9th Ave. P’ship v. Norton Co., 182 B.R. 1, 3 (N.D.N.Y.
1995). It suffices to say that the motions are meritless.
However, simply denying Tafari’s motions is no longer sufficient, as
he continues to file duplicative motions to amend that contravene the
court’s orders. Even before the court rejected his two prior attempts to
amend his Complaints, (see Dkt. No. 119 at 15 n.15), it warned Tafari of
the consequences of filing such motions, and disregarding the court’s
5

orders, (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 61 at 7). Despite this admonition, Tafari
continues to submit amended pleadings that rely on allegations that are
either untrue, or that occurred well after the relevant time period for
consideration of imminent danger. (See Dkt. No. 119 at 15 n.15, 18-58.)
Consequently, Tafari may no longer file motions to amend in the abovecaptioned cases. To this end, the Clerk is directed to reject, without further
order of the court, any future motions to amend in any of these cases.
Finally, the court received Tafari’s letter of November 14, 2012, in
which he seeks an additional 120 days to pay the filing fees in these cases.
(See, e.g., Dkt. No. 127 at 4, 11-cv-694.) While that request is
unreasonable, the court will grant Tafari a one-time extension of forty-five
(45) days to pay the fees with the caveat that the cases shall be stayed
during the extension. That means that the court will neither entertain nor
grant any further extensions, for any reason, and moreover, that Tafari may
not file any document or motion of any kind, in these cases, without
permission from the court, until the stay is lifted.1 Any document filed
without the court’s permission shall be rejected by the Clerk. Ultimately, if

1

Nothing in this Summary Order should be construed as limiting Tafari’s right to seek
review of the court’s decision.

6

Tafari fails to pay the statutory filing fees on or before January 14, 2013,
the court will dismiss any case in which the fee has not been paid.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED that Tafari’s motions to amend (Dkt. Nos. 121, 124, 11cv-694; Dkt. No. 24, 11-cv-1342; Dkt. No. 35, 11-cv-1390; Dkt. No. 21, 11cv-1422; Dkt. No. 31, 11-cv-1429; Dkt. No. 32, 11-cv-1447; Dkt. No. 32, 11cv-1464; Dkt. No. 28, 11-cv-1476; Dkt. No. 21, 12-cv-269; Dkt. No. 18, 12cv-662; Dkt. No. 9, 12-cv-1062) are DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Tafari’s motions for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 126,
11-cv-694; Dkt. No. 25, 11-cv-1342; Dkt. No. 36, 11-cv-1390; Dkt. No. 22,
11-cv-1422; Dkt. No. 32, 11-cv-1429; Dkt. No. 33, 11-cv-1464; Dkt. No. 29,
11-cv-1476; Dkt. No. 22, 12-cv-269; Dkt. No. 19, 12-cv-662; Dkt. No. 10,
12-cv-1062) are DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to reject, without further order of
the court, any future motions to amend filed by Tafari in any of the abovecaptioned cases; and it is further
ORDERED that Tafari’s request for extension of time within which to
pay the statutory filing fees (Dkt. No. 127, 11-cv-694; Dkt. No. 26, 11-cv1342; Dkt. No. 37, 11-cv-1390; Dkt. No. 23, 11-cv-1422; Dkt. No. 33, 11-cv7

1429; Dkt. No. 33, 11-cv-1447; Dkt. No. 34, 11-cv-1464; Dkt. No. 30, 11-cv1476; Dkt. No. 23, 12-cv-269; Dkt. No. 20, 12-cv-662; Dkt. No. 11, 12-cv1062) is GRANTED to the extent that he seeks an additional forty-five (45)
days to pay the fees; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall STAY the above-captioned cases
until the court directs otherwise; and it is further
ORDERED that if Tafari wishes to file a document or motion of any
kind, he must, until advised otherwise, seek permission from the court to do
so; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket and return any document of
any kind that is filed without leave of the court; and it is further
ORDERED that unless Tafari pays the statutory filing fees on or
before January 14, 2013, the court will dismiss any case in which the fee
has not been paid; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Summary Order to
the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 21, 2012
Albany, New York

8