Fox v. Tryon et al

Filing 12

DECISION AND ORDER: Because Plaintiff has failed to file with this Court the written consent of the United States Attorney General or her designee for Plaintiff to reapply for admission into the United States, the Court concludes that Plaintiff cann ot appear at any potential trial of this matter, and this case is therefore dismissed for Plaintiff's inability to prosecute this action. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that any appeal from this Order would no t be taken in good faith and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Any request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be directed by motion to the Un ited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and terminate this action. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 12/28/16. A copy of this Decision and Order and NEF are being mailed to the pro se Plaintiff.-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KRZYSZTOF J. FOX,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-692-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
TODD L. TRYON and
AGS SECURITY COMPANY,
Defendants.

CHRISTOPHER J. FOX, a/k/a
KRZYSZTOF JAROSLAW FOX,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-6196-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
AETNA FORWARDING, INC.,
Defendant.

CHRISTOPHER J. FOX, a/k/a
KRZYSZTOF J. FOX,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-6538-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, MICHAEL T.
PHILLIPS, MARVIN J. MULLER,
D.O. BERMUDEZ M-00568, D.O. V. PULCINI,
and D.O. SUP. HENDERSON,
Defendants.

CHRISTOPHER J. FOX, a/k/a
KRZYSZTOF J. FOX,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-6539-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
EMOTIONAL-MENTAL ABUSERS,
BED #101 UKRAINIAN MEN,
BED #102 ZENON PROKOP,
BED #89 TRINIDAD MEN,
BED #90 JAMAICAN MEN,
BED #106 JAMAICAN MEN FROM UNIT B3,
BED #90 MEN B3, BED #106 MEN B3,
BED #058 MEN VARGERA, PANAMA, THIS MEN
NOW IN UNIT B2 HIS NAME IS VARGAS?
Defendants.

CHRISTOPHER J. FOX,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-6601-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA, and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION CANADA CHRIS ALEXANDER,
Defendants.

CHRISTOPHER J. FOX,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-6602-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
MARK ZUCKERBERG, OWNER OF
FACEBOOK INC.,
Defendant.

2 

CHRISTOPHER J. FOX,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-6603-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
JACK MA, OWNER OF ALIBABA GROUP,
Defendant.

By Decision and Order dated September 1, 2016 issued in each of the above captioned
seven actions, the Court notified pro se Plaintiff Christopher J. Fox, a/k/a Krzysztof Jaroslaw
Fox (“Plaintiff”) that it was taking judicial notice of a separate action from this district to
demonstrate that Plaintiff was removed from the United States by the Department of Homeland
Security on January 26, 2016.

Further, the Court observed that as a result of his

removal/deportation, Plaintiff is not legally permitted to be present in the United States, and
presently resides in Poland.
As the Court observed in the September 1, 2016 Order, if any of these seven actions were
to proceed, Plaintiff would be required to physically appear before this Court for any potential
trial, both to present his claims and to provide any testimony in support of his claims. If he
failed to appear at such a trial, the action would have to be dismissed, even if Plaintiff’s nonappearance was the result of his deportation. Further, since Plaintiff has been deported or
removed from the United States, if he were to re-enter the United States without the prior express
written permission of the United States Attorney General, Plaintiff would be committing a felony
offense under United States law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). As such, due to his deportation, the
Court noted that it appeared unlikely that Plaintiff could ever appear before this Court to present
his claims.

3 

However, the Court was mindful that re-entry of a previously deported alien could be
permitted if “the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for
admission.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2). Under this statute, a procedure exists for a deported
alien such as Plaintiff to be lawfully readmitted to the United States, and the discretion to grant
such re-entry is committed to the Executive Branch. Because the law affords Plaintiff a means
of potentially obtaining lawful re-entry into the United States to appear in person for a trial of
these cases, the Court provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to obtain such lawful re-admission
to the United States before dismissing his cases.
Specifically, the Court’s September 1, 2016 Order directed Plaintiff to file with the Court
a copy of the written consent of the United States Attorney General or her designee for Plaintiff
to reapply for admission into the United States. The Order further warned Plaintiff that if a copy
of such written consent was not been filed before November 30, 2016, these seven actions will
be dismissed for Plaintiff’s inability to prosecute these cases.
The November 30, 2016 deadline has now passed, and almost a month after the deadline,
the Court still has not received any communication or filings whatsoever from Plaintiff. Because
Plaintiff has failed to file with this Court the written consent of the United States Attorney
General or her designee for Plaintiff to reapply for admission into the United States, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff cannot appear at any potential trial of these matters, and these cases are
therefore dismissed. See, e.g., Kuar v. Mawn, No. 08-CV-4401 JFB ETB, 2012 WL 3808620, at
*6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2012) (“The Court concludes that, where there is no reasonable possibility
that a pro se plaintiff can appear at trial because of deportation, the court may dismiss the case
for failure to prosecute after providing plaintiff with a reasonable time to rectify the order of
deportation.).

4 

CONCLUSION
The seven above-captioned actions, namely:
1) Case # 15-CV-692-FPG;
2) Case # 15-CV-6196-FPG;
3) Case # 15-CV-6538-FPG;
4) Case # 15-CV-6539-FPG;
5) Case # 15-CV-6601-FPG;
6) Case # 15-CV-6602-FPG; and
7) Case # 15-CV-6603-FPG,
are each DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s inability to prosecute these actions.
The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that any appeal from this
Order would not be taken in good faith and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor
person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Any request to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal should be directed by motion to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and terminate these actions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 28, 2016
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

5