Dixon v. Hahn et al

Filing 9

BAR ORDER UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1651: The Court hereby bars Plaintiff from filing any future civil actions in this court IFP without first obtaining permission from the court to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Plaintiff must attach a copy of hi s proposed complaint commencing a future civil action in this court, as well as a copy of this order, to any motion seeking leave to file a civil action in this court IFP. The motion must be filed with the court's Pro Se Intake Unit. If Plaint iff violates this order and files a civil action in this court IFP without filing a motion for leave to file, the court will dismiss that action for failure to comply with this order. The Court warns Plaintiff that the continued submission of frivo lous documents may result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. See id. 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 the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing this action for the reasons set forth in the Court's August 7, 2023 order and in its January 23, 2024 order. (See ECF 5 & 8.) (Signed by Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/25/2024) (tg) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
YUSUF FARUQ DIXON,
Plaintiff,
-againstHON. RACHEL HAHN “THE COURT,” et al.,

1:23-CV-5424 (LTS)
BAR ORDER UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 1651

Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
By order dated August 7, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under federal law,
but granted Plaintiff, who appears pro se and proceeds in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 60 days’ leave
to replead, in an amended complaint, those claims for which the Court had granted him such
leave in that order. (ECF 5.) That order also specified that if Plaintiff failed to file an amended
complaint, the Court would issue an order: (1) dismissing Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for
the reasons discussed in that order; (2) declining to consider, under the Court’s supplemental
jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law; and (3) directing Plaintiff, in light of his litigation
history, to show cause why the Court should not bar him from filing any future civil actions in
this court IFP without first obtaining permission from the court to do so. (Id.)
By order dated October 16, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff a 60-day extension of time
to file an amended complaint. (ECF 7.) In that order, the Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed
to file an amended complaint within the extended time allowed, the Court would dismiss this
action and would direct him to show cause why the Court should not bar him from filing any
future civil actions in this court IFP without first obtaining permission from the court to do so.
(Id.)

Because Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, in an order dated January 23, 2024,
the Court dismissed this action; the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for the
reasons set forth in the Court’s August 7, 2023 order, and declined to consider, under its
supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law. (ECF 8).
The Court also directed Plaintiff to show cause, by declaration, within 30 days of the date
of the Court’s January 23, 2024 order, why the Court should not bar him from filing any future
civil actions in this court IFP without first obtaining permission from the court to do so. (Id.) The
Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to submit a declaration within the time directed, or if his
declaration did not set forth good cause why such a filing injunction should not be imposed upon
him, the Court would impose such a filing injunction upon him. (Id.)
Plaintiff has not filed a declaration in response to the Court’s January 23, 2024 order.
Accordingly, the Court will bar Plaintiff from filing any future civil actions in this court IFP
without first obtaining permission from the court to do so.
CONCLUSION
The Court hereby bars Plaintiff from filing any future civil actions in this court IFP
without first obtaining permission from the court to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Plaintiff must
attach a copy of his proposed complaint commencing a future civil action in this court, as well as
a copy of this order, to any motion seeking leave to file a civil action in this court IFP. The
motion must be filed with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. If Plaintiff violates this order and files a
civil action in this court IFP without filing a motion for leave to file, the court will dismiss that
action for failure to comply with this order.
The Court warns Plaintiff that the continued submission of frivolous documents may
result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. See id.

2

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 the purpose of an appeal.
Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing this action for the
reasons set forth in the Court’s August 7, 2023 order and in its January 23, 2024 order. (See ECF
5 & 8.)
Dated:

March 25, 2024
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

3