MINA et al v. CHESTER COUNTY et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 7/28/16. 7/28/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED. (va, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY STOCKER MINA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHESTER COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NOs. 15-05452
16-01013

ANTHONY STOCKER MINA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
et al.,
Defendants.

PAPPERT, J.

July 28, 2016
MEMORANDUM

Anthony Stocker Mina (“Mina”) is an experienced pro se litigant in state and federal
courts. In our Court specifically he has filed numerous lawsuits over several years, all of which
relate to his disagreement with many state court decisions and allege nefarious conduct and
conspiracies by and among judges and employees of the federal judiciary. Judges are typically
named as defendants for making decisions with which Mina disagrees. In his latest action, Mina
v. United States Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, No. 16-cv-01013 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2,
2016), Mina claims that Chief Judge Petrese B. Tucker (“Chief Judge Tucker”) and several
Clerk’s Office employees failed to provide transcripts of hearings and add parties to his appeal in
one case and failed to provide sealed summonses for his amended complaint in another case.
1

The United States of America (“the Government”) has filed a Statement of Interest on
behalf of judges and Clerk’s Office employees in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (“the Eastern District”). The Government asks the Court to, among
other things, curb Mina’s meritless and repetitive actions by enjoining him from filing any
further pleadings in four specific cases without leave of Court. This Memorandum addresses the
Government’s request and also resolves all pending motions filed by Mina in the two matters
currently assigned to the Court.
I.
Mina has filed eight lawsuits over the span of nearly three years in our Court. Four of
those cases sought relief solely from state court judgments, which is barred under the RookerFeldman doctrine. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159,
165 (3d Cir. 2010) (noting that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “established the principle that
federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are essentially appeals from state-court
judgments”); see also Reardon v. Leason, 408 F. App’x 551, 553 n.3 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[B]ecause
[the plaintiff] is effectively asking the District Court to void a state court conviction, he is barred
from doing so under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”) (citation omitted). Our Court sua sponte
dismissed each complaint as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii) (providing that
“[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any petition thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal . . . (i) is
frivolous or malicious; [or] (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”). Mina
appealed each decision and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. See Mina v. Enet
Advertising, No. 14-mc-00254, 2015 WL 10943831, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2015), aff’d, 616 F.
App’x 49 (3d Cir. 2015); Mina v. Hogan, No. 14-mc-00221 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2015) (order

2

denying motion for relief from judgment), aff’d, 616 F. App’x 483 (3d Cir. 2015); Mina v.
Hogan, No. 14-mc-00222 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2015) (order denying motion for relief from
judgment), aff’d, No. 15-1643 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2015); Mina v. Hogan, No. 14-mc-00259 (E.D.
Pa. Feb. 10, 2015) (order denying motion or relief from judgment), aff’d, 616 F. App’x 41 (3d
Cir. 2015). Those suits did not allege any claims against judges or Clerk’s Office employees in
the Eastern District; Mina’s other four actions are however brought against district court judges
and employees.
A.
Mina filed his first suit in federal court, Mina v. Chester County Court of Common Pleas,
No. 13-cv-07622 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2013) (“the First Action”), on December 27, 2013. (ECF
No. 1.) The original Complaint named 41 defendants, including the Court of Common Pleas of
Chester County (“Court of Common Pleas”), seven judges and various employees of the Court of
Common Pleas, the West Chester Police Department, two public defenders, two newspapers,
three private attorneys and a web design company. (ECF No. 3 at 1–2.) Mina alleged, inter-alia,
various civil rights violations and conspiracy claims, all stemming from the handling of his
criminal and civil cases in the Court of Common Pleas. (Id. at 138–40.) The events surrounding
the allegations took place between 1996 and 2013. (Id.)
On January 6, 2014, Judge Restrepo granted Mina’s Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis, allotting him thirty days to file an amended complaint and closing the case for
statistical purposes. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) In his Order, Judge Restrepo noted that federal courts do
not have jurisdiction to review a state court decision. (Id. at 2.) On February 4, 2014, Mina filed
both a Motion for Relief from Judgment and an Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 4–5.) The
Motion for Relief from Judgment requested that Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Tunnell’s

3

Order in a state court case be reversed and that the remainder of the action be heard in our Court.
(ECF No. 4.) The Amended Complaint, largely a reflection of the original Complaint, added
Judge Restrepo as a defendant. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Mina claimed that Judge Restrepo violated his
due process rights by marking the case as closed “without any hearing or discovery.” (Id. at 2.)
The case was reassigned from Judge Restrepo to Judge Goldberg on February 12, 2014. (ECF
No. 6.)
After the case was transferred to Judge Goldberg, Mina filed four Motions for Relief
from Judgment, which mirrored his February 4, 2014 motion. (ECF Nos. 4, 8, 14, 42.) On July
21, 2014, Judge Goldberg issued an Order and Opinion dismissing the First Action as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e) and revoking Mina’s access to the Electronic Document
Filing (“ECF”) System. See Mina v. Chester Cty. Court of Common Pleas, No. 13-cv-7622,
2014 WL 3639132, at *1–3 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2014), aff’d sub nom., No. 14-4620, 2016 WL
3743180 (3d Cir. July 13, 2016).
Subsequent to the First Action’s dismissal, Mina filed four additional Motions for Relief
from Judgment, seeking relief from both state court decisions and Judge Goldberg’s decision
dismissing the First Action. (ECF Nos. 48–49, 51, 53.) Mina also appealed Judge Goldberg’s
decision, which the Third Circuit affirmed. See Mina v. Chester Cty. Court of Common Pleas,
No. 14-4620, 2016 WL 3743180, at *1–2 (3d Cir. July 13, 2016).
B.
On October 31, 2014 Mina filed a nearly identical lawsuit against the Chester County
Court of Common Pleas and 46 other defendants, including Judges Restrepo and Goldberg. See
Mina v. Chester County, No. 14-cv-06261 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2014) (“the Second Action”). The
case was eventually assigned to Judge Smith on November 20, 2014. (ECF No. 3.) The

4

Government filed a Statement of Interest on April 23, 2015, which asked the Court to dismiss the
claims against Judges Restrepo and Goldberg as legally insufficient. (ECF No. 23 at 7.) Mina
proceeded to file a “Motion for Defendant to Immediately Compensate Plaintiff” (ECF No. 38)
and a Motion for ECF Access. (ECF No. 39.) Mina also filed for “default judgment” twice—
though had not filed for entry of default—against several of the defendants. (ECF Nos. 61, 76.)
On July 24, 2015, Judge Smith ordered that the Clerk of Court set aside all of the defaults and
prohibit Mina from filing any further requests for default against any of the defendants until
further Court order to “abate manifest injustice and forestall further abuse of this court’s
procedural rules.” (ECF No. 78 at 3.)
Mina filed a Motion for Judge Smith’s recusal on August 3, 2015, contending that Judge
Smith was “retaliating against” Mina for “exposing the malfeasance” of the defendants. (ECF
No. 83 at 1.) He also filed three other motions within days of his Motion for Recusal, all of
which sought relief from Judge Smith’s July 24, 2015 Order. (ECF Nos. 85–86, 89.) The
Government filed a second Statement of Interest on August 17, 2015, which again urged the
Court to dismiss the claims against Judges Restrepo and Goldberg. (ECF No. 94.) Mina filed
five more motions, including ones seeking sanctions against former Pennsylvania Governor Tom
Corbett and reconsideration of Judge Smith’s July 24, 2015 Order. (ECF Nos. 100, 102–105.)
Mina also filed countless motions and notices which, among other things, requested that Judge
Smith vacate his July 24, 2015 Order and recuse himself from the case. (ECF Nos. 114, 116,
120–23, 125–127,129, 131, 135–37, 139–40, 142, 144–54.)
On October 29, 2015 Judge Smith dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and denied the remainder of Mina’s motions as moot (ECF Nos. 158–
59.) Mina responded with a slew of motions and notices seeking, among other things, relief

5

from Judge Smith’s October 29 Order. (ECF Nos. 160–162, 164, 166–67, 169, 171–73, 175–77,
179, 183–84.) On December 31, 2015, Mina appealed Judge Smith’s October 29, November 10
and December 1, 2015 Orders which denied Mina’s Motions for Reconsideration and Relief
from Judgment, respectively. (ECF Nos. 185–86.) Since Mina’s appeal, he has filed 16 notices
on the docket. (ECF Nos. 188–89, 191–204.) His appeal remains pending.
C.
On October 1, 2015 Mina filed his third complaint against 62 defendants. See Mina v.
Chester County, No. 15-cv-05452 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2015) (“the Third Action”). The case was
assigned to Judge Ditter. All 42 of the defendants named in the First Action, including Judges
Restrepo and Goldberg, were also named in the Third Action. (ECF No. 1 at 1–3.) Judge Smith
and the Eastern District were among the new defendants. (Id. at 3.) The Complaint alleged the
same civil rights violations and conspiracy as those in the First and Second Actions. (Id. at 154–
57.) Mina subsequently filed a Motion for ECF Access on October 7, 2015. (ECF No. 3.)
On October 26, 2015 several of the defendants who were also named in the Second
Action filed a Motion to Stay the Proceedings in the Third Action. (ECF No. 8.) Those
defendants argued that the complaint in the Third Action was “functionally identical” to the
Complaint in the Second Action and that “this matter is a transparent attempt by [Mina] to
circumvent the stay on proceedings imposed by Judge Smith [in the Second Action].” (Id. at 3.)
On November 1, 2015 Judge Ditter denied the Motion to Stay Proceedings as moot and
dismissed the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “consistent with the disposition of
the substantially identical complaint filed [in the Second Action] and dismissed by the Honorable
Edward G. Smith on October 29, 2015.” (ECF No. 9 at 1.) Judge Ditter also noted that the filing

6

of the Complaint in the Third Action was an “attempt to avoid Judge Smith’s rulings” and an
“impermissible abuse of process that shall not be permitted.” (Id.)
On November 12, 2015 Mina filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the November 1
Order which Judge Ditter summarily denied on November 16, 2015. (ECF Nos. 10–11.) Mina
filed yet another Motion for ECF Access on November 19, 2015. (ECF No. 12.) Without leave
of Court, Mina filed an Amended Complaint and named Judge Ditter as a defendant on
December 2, 2015. (ECF No. 13.) On December 17, 2015, the case was reassigned from Judge
Ditter to this Court. (ECF No. 14.) The same defendants who filed the October 26 Motion to
Stay Proceedings filed another such motion. (ECF No. 15.)
On January 25, 2016 Mina filed a Praecipe to Issue Summons, a Motion for ECF Access,
a Request for Default Judgment against several defendants, a Motion for Extension of Time to
serve the Amended Complaint and a Notice to the defendants that he would be publishing his
filings in the case online beginning in February 2016. (ECF Nos. 16–20.) Mina also submitted
an Opposition to the Motion to Stay Proceedings and a Preliminary Motion to Compel on March
2, 2016. (ECF Nos. 21–22.)
This Court ruled on all of Mina’s pending motions on March 10, 2016. (ECF Nos. 24–
27.) The Court denied the Motion to Stay Proceedings as moot in accordance with Judge Ditter’s
November 3 and 16, 2015 Orders. (ECF No. 24.) The Court also dismissed Mina’s Amended
Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction consistent with Judge Smith’s dismissal of the
substantially identical Complaint on October 29, 2015. (Id.) Finally, the Court denied all of
Mina’s January 25, 2016 motions as moot. (ECF Nos. 25–27.)
On March 23, 2015 Mina filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 10,
2016 Order (ECF No. 28) and a “Notice to Judge Gerald J. Pappert and the U.S. Eastern District

7

Court to Get Plaintiff’s Case the Fuck Out of Their Court.” (ECF No. 29.) The Court denied the
Motion for Reconsideration on March 30, 2016. (ECF No. 30.) Mina filed three more motions
on April 11, 2016: a motion for this Court’s recusal, a Motion for Relief of Judgment from the
March 10 Orders and a Motion for Reconsideration of the March 10 Orders. (ECF Nos. 31, 33,
35.) More than two months later, on June 30, 2016, Mina filed another Motion for ECF Access.
(ECF Nos. 37.) Mina’s April 11 and June 30 motions remain pending.
D.
On October 1, 2015 Mina filed his “Fourth Action” and eighth case overall in the Eastern
District. See Mina v. U.S. E. Dist. Court of Pa., No. 16-cv-01013 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2016). This
case differs from the First, Second and Third Actions in that Mina’s Complaint names as
defendants the Eastern District, Chief Judge Tucker and various Clerk’s Office employees (“the
Federal Defendants”). (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The Complaint, similar to its predecessors, claims that
the Federal Defendants conspired against Mina and failed to properly perform their judicial
duties. (Id.) The Government filed a Statement of Interest on May 6, 2016, seeking to dismiss
Mina’s Complaint with prejudice and enjoin him from filing any further pleading “against any
judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or any
employee of the Clerk’s Office for the same Court.” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) On June 30, 2016, Mina
filed a Motion for ECF Access. (ECF No. 4.)
II.
Before the Court are Mina’s five pending motions in Mina v. Chester County, No. 15-cv05452 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2015) (ECF Nos. 31, 33, 35, 37) and Mina v. United States Eastern
District Court of Pennsylvania, No. 16-cv-01013 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2016) (ECF No. 4), as well as

8

the Government’s Statement of Interest (ECF No. 3) in the latter case. The Court denies each of
Mina’s motions and grants the Government’s request for the following reasons.

III.
A.
A party may seek to recuse a federal judge on the basis of bias or prejudice under 28
U.S.C. Section 144. See Petrossian v. Cole, 613 F. App’x 109, 122 (3d Cir. 2015) (citation
omitted). Specifically, 28 U.S.C. Section 455 requires a judge to recuse where his or her
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A party’s displeasure with legal rulings however
does not form an adequate basis for recusal. See Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom
Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Importantly, “recusal is not required
on the grounds of unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation.” In re Kokinda, 581 F.
App’x 160, 161 (3d Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Mina’s most recent recusal motion asks the Court to recuse itself from Mina v. Chester
County, No. 15-cv-05452 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2015) because he named the Court’s Civil Deputy,
Katie Furphy (“Furphy”), as a defendant in his most recent action, Mina v. United States Eastern
District Court of Pennsylvania., No. 16-cv-01013 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2016). It is unclear from the
Complaint what factual allegations are asserted against Furphy, other than that she emailed Mina
on February 12, 2016 informing him that the Court docketed his filings and has not ruled on his
pending motions. (ECF No. 1-2 at 8–9.) Mina’s motion follows a long line of other such recusal
motions, see supra Part I.B–C, which seek judges’ recusals after they rule in a way which
displeases Mina. Here, the Court dismissed Mina’s Amended Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction in accordance with Judge Smith’s disposition and dismissal of the

9

substantially identical Complaint filed in the Second Action. (ECF No. 24.) As Mina’s
displeasure with the Court’s ruling is not a proper basis for recusal, his motion is denied.

B.
Mina’s Motion for Relief of Judgment from the Court’s March 10 Orders in Mina v.
Chester County, No. 15-cv-05452 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2015) is also denied. (ECF No. 33.) While
the motion does not clarify under which subsection of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 Mina
is entitled to relief, he largely rehashes the same arguments made in all of his previous motions
for Relief of Judgment spanning this action and his other actions before our Court. Rule 60
provides no such relief. See Uwalaka v. New Jersey, 549 F. App’x 69, 70 (3d Cir. 2014) (“Legal
error, without more, is not a basis for granting a Rule 60(b) motion.”) (citing Smith v. Evans, 853
F.2d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 1988)); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536 (2005) (stating
that a litigant moving under Rule 60 must show “extraordinary circumstances” to justify
reopening a final judgment).
C.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows parties to file motions for reconsideration.
A proper Rule 59(e) motion must be based on either an intervening change in controlling law,
the availability of new or previously unavailable evidence, or the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. See North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,
1218 (3d Cir. 1995). The party seeking reconsideration bears the burden of establishing one of
these grounds. See Max’s Seafood Café ex el. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir. 1999). “Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions
for reconsideration should be granted sparingly.” Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884

10

F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (citing Rottmund v. Cont’l Assurance Co., 813 F. Supp. 1104,
1107 (E.D. Pa. 1992)).
Moreover, “‘[a] motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a
court consider repetitive arguments that have been fully examined by the court.’” Blue Mountain
Mushroom Co. v. Monterey Mushroom, Inc., 246 F. Supp. 2d 394, 398 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (quoting
Tobin v. General Elec. Co., No. 95-cv-4003, 1998 WL 31875, at *3 (E.D. Pa. 1998)).
Dissatisfaction with a court’s ruling is not a proper basis for reconsideration. See E.E.O.C. v.
Dan Lepore & Sons Co., 2004 WL 569526, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2004) (citations omitted).
Mina’s Motion for Reconsideration recycles previous arguments, is substantially identical to his
Motion for Relief of Judgment discussed supra Part III.B. and is largely based on displeasure
with the Court’s ruling. None of these establishes “the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” North Rivers Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218.
D.
Mina’s Motions for ECF Access are also denied. Judge Goldberg in Mina v. Chester
County Court of Common Pleas, No. 13-cv-7622 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2013) granted Mina access
to the ECF System on May 30, 2014 (ECF No. 11) and then revoked it on July 21, 2014. (ECF
No. 35). His decision to do so was appealed and affirmed. See Mina v. Chester Cty. Court of
Common Pleas, No. 13-cv-7622, 2014 WL 3639132, at *1–3 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2014), aff’d sub
nom., No. 14-4620, 2016 WL 3743180 (3d Cir. July 13, 2016).
E.
i.
The Court dismisses Mina’s Complaint in Mina v. United States Eastern District Court of
Pennsylvania, No. 16-cv-01013 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2016) with prejudice. (ECF No. 1.) The

11

Complaint specifically alleges that the Federal Defendants failed to: provide transcripts of
hearings in the Second Action, provide signed and sealed summons for the Amended Complaint
in the Third Action and add parties to the appeal of the Second Action. (Id.) The Federal
Defendants are entitled to judicial immunity for all claims asserted against them.
A judge acting in the course of his or her judicial duties has absolute immunity from suit.
See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991); see also Shahin v. Darling, 350 F. App’x 605, 607
(3d Cir. 2009). Such immunity can be overcome only if the judge acted outside the scope of his
official capacity or in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. See Deputy v. Williams, 318 F.
App’x 133, 136 (3d Cir. 2009). Clerk’s Office employees are also entitled to judicial immunity
in the course of their judicial duties. That immunity extends to those who perform “quasijudicial” functions or discretionary actions at the direction of our Court. See Antoine v. Byers &
Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 436 (1993); see also Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d
760, 722–73 (3d Cir. 2000). 1
ii.
a.
Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), a district court may enjoin “abusive,
groundless, and vexatious litigation.” Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993); see
also In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982). The “broad scope” of this power is limited
by “two fundamental tenets of our legal system—the litigant’s rights to due process and access to
the courts.” Brow, 994 F.2d at 1038. The Third Circuit has held that district courts “must
comply with the following requirements when issuing such prohibitive injunctive orders against
pro se litigants.” Id. First, the Court should not restrict a litigant from filing claims “absent
1

The Third Circuit denied Mina’s same requests for a transcript of hearings held in the Second Action and to add
parties to the appeal of the Second Action. See Mina v. Chester Cty., No. 16-1002 (3d Cir. May 2, 2016) (order
denying such requests).

12

exigent circumstances, such as a litigant’s continuous abuse of the judicial process by filing
meritless and repetitive actions.” Id.; see also Matter of Packer Ave. Assoc., 884 F.2d 745, 747
(3d Cir. 1989). Second, the Court “must give notice to the litigant to show cause why the
proposed injunctive relief should not issue.” Brow, 994 F.2d at 1038; see also Gagliardi v.
McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1987). Third, the scope of the injunctive order “must be
narrowly tailored to fit the particular circumstances of the case before the [] Court.” Brow, 944
F.2d at 1038; see also Chipps v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Middle Dist. of Pa., 882 F.2d 72,
73 (3d Cir. 1989).
b.
Mina has filed eight actions in our Court, four of which are against judges and Clerk’s
Office employees in the Eastern District. The First, Second and Third Actions are virtually
identical attempts to relitigate Mina’s state court cases. See Day v. Toner, 549 F. App’x 66, 67
(3d Cir. 2014) (affirming an injunction where four of the pro se plaintiff’s five lawsuits were
dismissed because they were “identical to the lawsuits that the Middle District of Florida
previously found to be frivolous”) (citation omitted); see also Danihel v. Office of the President,
No. 14-cv-6880, 2015 WL 1954269, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2015), aff’d sub nom, No. 15-2458,
2016 WL 54117 (3d Cir. Jan. 5, 2016) (finding a pre-filing injunction appropriate where pro se
litigant had commenced a second lawsuit in an attempt to relitigate the first). Furthermore, all
three of the lawsuits “appear to have lacked merit and have been dismissed.” Bishop v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., No. 14-cv-5244, 2015 WL 2125782, at *8 (D.N.J. May 6, 2015), aff’d sub nom.,
No. 15-2605, 2016 WL 1743491 (3d Cir. May 3, 2016).
Within each of Mina’s suits against judges and Clerk’s Office employees he has filed
countless motions, most of which seek relief from both state and federal court decisions, recusal

13

of judges and default judgment. Despite being informed several times that a federal district court
does not have jurisdiction to overturn state court decisions, Mina has filed an untold number of
Motions for Relief from Judgment, requesting reversal of decisions in his state court cases. Mina
has also filed numerous Motions for Relief from Orders dismissing his suits. See Grossberger v.
Ruane, 535 F. App’x 84, 86 (3d Cir. 2013) (affirming a pre-filing injunction where the plaintiff
had “relentlessly continue[d] to file repetitive motions even after his case ha[d] been closed”);
Danihel, 2015 WL 1954269, at *2 (finding that the plaintiff’s “two dozen requests for relief”
after dismissal of his second action weighed in favor of ordering a pre-filing injunction); see also
Robinson v. N.J. Mercer Cty. Vicinage-Family Div., 562 F. App’x 145, 148 (3d Cir. 2014)
(upholding the district court’s decision to enjoin pro se plaintiff from “filing any new case,
proceeding, motion, or other litigation document without written permission” when he had filed
seven motions after the case had been remanded). Many of Mina’s motions have also been
deemed meritless. See Grossberger, 535 F. App’x at 86 (“None of [the plaintiff’s] repetitious
filings have presented a meritorious basis for reopening his case.”)
In addition to Mina’s meritless and repetitive actions, he frequently sends letters to the
Court via fax and email. Some letters are related to his lawsuits, while others deal with aspects
of his personal life. In a letter dated December 29, 2015, Mina informed the Court that “[t]he
odds of my case being randomly dismissed within 4 days of an election, 3 elections in a row is 1
in 753,571.” In his January 15, 2016 letter, Mina stated that he is “not being paid to do police
work” and that “wiring your courthouse because I have no choice constitutes involuntary
servitude.” Before ending his correspondence, Mina noted that the “FBI has been informed that
I am being tortured because of my knowledge of government corruption that includes the
unauthorized use of juvenile’s sex lives (kiddy porn).” In a March 15, 2016 email he put the

14

Court on notice that “[r]egardless of your decisions, until I am treated fairly there will always be
filings made by me all the way through the Appeals process.” In another email dated July 21,
2016, he informed the Court that both of his “brake line[s]” failed on the Pennsylvania turnpike
and that his daughter slipped and fell outside of Harrah’s Casino.
While Mina has made it clear that he is dissatisfied with the Court of Common Pleas and
our Court’s decisions, he has also “established a pattern of groundless and vexatious litigation”
that satisfies the first prong of the test laid out in Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d at 1038.
The Government’s Statement of Interest provided Mina with sufficient notice that such an
injunction may be imposed. Mina has had ample time to respond to the request for an injunction
but has not. See Gagliardi, 834 F.2d at 83; Bishop, 2015 WL 2125782, at *8 (“Further, regarding
the second element of the pre-filing injunction test, Plaintiff has received (1) sufficient notice
regarding the possibility of a pre-filing injunction being issued (by way of the Government’s
motion, properly served on Bishop, requesting such an injunction) and (2) an opportunity to
respond (by way of an opposition brief).”); see also Bush v. Philadelphia Police Dep’t, 387 F.
App’x 130, 133 (3d Cir. 2010) (“Generally, the bar should not be imposed by a court without
prior notice and some occasion to respond.”).
Mina has established a pattern of commencing new suits against judges who have ruled
against him. In his more recent actions, he has also begun to add employees of the Clerk’s
Office. As a result of Mina’s “continuous pattern of groundless and vexatious litigation,” he is
enjoined from filing or causing to be filed any pleading, motion or other paper in Civil Action
Numbers 13-07622, 14-06261, 15-05452 and 16-01013 or any other new proceeding or action
against the United States or any of its agencies or employees without first obtaining leave of
Court. Gagliardi, 834 F.2d at 83.

15

Appropriate Orders follow.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.

16