PICOZZI v. TOMAS et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 7/12/18. 7/12/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PICOZZI.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION NOS. 18-CV-2201
18-CV-2235
18-CV-2238
18-CV-2239
18-CV-2277
18-CV-2324
18-CV-2327
18-CV-2532
18-CV-2616
18-CV-2771

INRE:
THOMAS PICOZZI,
Plaintiff.

FILED
JUL 12 2018
KATE BARKMAN, Clerk
By
Oe.p. Clerk

MEMORANDUM
MCHUGH,J.

JULY /.Z., 2018

Plaintiff Thomas Picozzi, proceeding prose, has filed fifteen (15) cases in this Court in
approximately a month and a half. After his first three cases were dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, he began suing the Judges who dismissed these cases and Clerk's Office
staff. He appears to contend that the dismissal of his cases stems from a judicial conspiracy that
may involve the carpenter's union.
In a June 8, 2018 Order, )udge Kearney dismissed a group of Picozzi's cases and gave
him time to show cause as to why he should not be enjoined from filing cases in forma pauperis
in light of his abuse of that privilege. Rather than responding to Judge Kearney's Order, Picozzi
filed new cases, which were opened as Civil Action Nos. 18-2532 and 18-2616, and included
Judge Kearney as a Defendant. After his cases were reassigned to Judge Savage, Picozzi filed
yet another civil action, 18-2771, including Judge Savage as a Defendant. For the following
reasons, the Court will grant Picozzi leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his three most recent
cases, Picozzi v. McKeown, Civ. A. No. 18-2532, Picozzi v. McCormack, Civ. A. No. 18-2616,

1

and Picozzi v. Brady, Civ. A. No. 18-2771, and dismiss those cases. Because he has abused the

in forma pa1:'peris privilege by filing repeated groundless complaints at a rapid pace, the Court
will also enjoin Picozzi from filing non-habeas civil cases in forma pauperis, unless they
challenge conditions of confinement, for a period of two years.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1
As noted above, Picozzi has filed fifteen (15) cases in this Court in approximately a

month and a half. He initially filed cases that appeared to be loosely based on a will, alleged
assaults and murder, medical issues, injuries to his genitals, alleged harassment, and allegations
that he had fathered children with two women who have since been hiding the children from
him. After Judges on this Court dismissed those cases, primarily on jurisdictional grounds,
Picozzi began filing lawsuits against those Judges as well as Court staff. He also initiated a
lawsuit based on his recent conviction for harassment, and a lawsuit based on a protection from
abuse order that his ex-wife procured against him. After the dismissal of those cases, Picozzi
initiated three cases that essentially rehash his claims against some of the same and some new
Defendants, and suggest that Judges and Court staff are conspiring with those who have harmed
him. As Picozzi' s prior lawsuits' underlie his claims, the Court will recount them here, in
addition to recounting the allegations in his more recent lawsuits.

A.

Picozzi's First Case: Civil Action Number 18-1998

Picozzi filed his first Complaint in this Court on May 11, 2018, which was docketed as

Picozzi v. McKeown, Civ. A. No. 18-1998 (E.D. Pa.) and assigned to the Honorable Mitchell S.
Goldberg. He named Joseph McKeown, Pat Mason, Kathleen Kacknacker, Ethel McKeown,

1

The following facts are taken from Picozzi's pleadings and public dockets for other cases he
previously filed in this Court including those underlying his claims in the instant cases.

2

and llarry McKucking as Defendants. Picozzi alleged that "when [he] was a young kid Joseph
molested [him] for they been harassing [him] when [his] mom die[d)." (Civ. A. No. 18-1998,
Compl. at 3.) He contended that the Defendants "made a will behind [his] back" and blocked his
phone number from people. (Id.) Picozzi claimed that he "'had to go to City Hall and get a will."

(Id.) I le also claimed that the Defendants "had this people in the medical field do stuff to [him
and he] got stuff in [his] private part where [he] can't have sex!" (Id.) Picozzi argued that
"Joseph came to hospital and did stuff this Dr. Snyder no [sic] him real well and his brother
Murphy." (Id.) He also lost his house in Langhorne. (Id.) According to Picozzi, Murphy and
his sister "tr[ied] to kill [him] at a wedding by drugging [him]." (Id.) He claimed that the
Defendants' actions "screw[ed him] up" mentally. (Id. at 4.) As relief, he asked the Court to
"put the guy behind bars." (Id.)
In a Memorandum and Order docketed May 16, 2018, Judge Goldberg granted Picozzi
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. Judge
Goldberg observed that Picozzi had not stated a basis for a federal civil rights claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, as Picozzi had not sued state actors and lacked a judicially cognizable interest in
the prosecution of others. To the extent Picozzi was asserting claims under state law, he had not
stated a basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 1332, as the Complaint did not provide
any information about the parties' citizenship. Accordingly, Judge Goldberg gave Picozzi leave
to amend in the event he could establish a basis for diversity jurisdiction. Picozzi did not file an
amended complaint; instead, he filed a letter asking Judge Goldberg and Judge Kearney (who at
that point had been assigned to subsequent cases filed by Picozzi) to call him before dismissing
his cases or he will "report [them] to the U.S. Marshalls [sic]." (Civ. A. No. 18-1998, ECF No.
7.) By Order entered on June 26, 2018, Judge Savage, who was reassigned to the case after

3

Picozzi sued Judge Kearney, dismissed this action because of Picozzi's failure to file an
amended complaint. (Civ. A. No. 18-1998, ECF No. 10.)

B.

Picozzi's Second Case: Civil Action '.'lumber 18-2032

Picozzi filed his second Complaint in this Court on May 15, 2018, which was docketed as
Picozzi v. Guy Peiagelee & Sons, Civ. A. No. 18-2032 (E.D. Pa.) and assigned to the Honorable

Cynthia M. Rufe. Picozzi named as Defendants Guy Peiagelee & Sons, Harry McKucking,
Franny L.affy, Ed Coreyel, Ed Coreyel, Jr., Joseph Biccala and Son, Gerry Coganlen, Mike
Jacab, Noll Orr, Bob Burns, and Rich Gannon. Picozzi alleged that Harry McKucking tried to
kill him because he found out that McKucking had murdered his daughter. (Civ. A. No. 18-2032
Compl. at 3.) He contended that McKucking had Picozzi's ex-wife "drug [him] for years they
killed [him he] came back." (Id.) Picozzi then heard "they [stole] over 150 million off of the
state of PA convention." (/d.) Subsequently, "Carpenter top men where good friend with all the
doctor they had [Picozzi] beat up put stuff in [his] private part [his] body where [he] can't have
sex." (Id.) Guy Peiagalee and his son allegedly stole a grave site from Picozzi's family where "a
little baby" was buried. (Id.) Franny Laffy "was (allegedly] involved in a murder of [Picozzi's]
buddy Larry Sullivan," and she was also allegedly involved in what happened to Picozzi. (Id.)
Picozzi contended that these events occurred in 2011. (Id.) With respect to injuries, Picozzi
claimed that he "can't have sex can't pee [right] it all swelling up down there" and that he has "a
sound in [his] head all day." (Id.) He asserts that he has called the carpenters' union 1,000 times
and that it hasn't called him back. (Id.)
In a Memorandum and Order docketed on May 18, 2018, Judge Rufe granted Picozzi
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his Complaint. Judge Rufe explained that
several of Picozzi's allegations rose to the level of delusional because they were based on

4

irrational or nonsensical thoughts. Judge Rufe also concluded that there was no basis for a
federal claim and that, to the extent Picozzi was raising claims under state law, there was no
basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. After concluding that amendment was
futile, Judge Rufe dismissed the case with prejudice. Subsequent to the dismissal of his case,
Picozzi filed various statements and exhibits, none of which show that the Court has jurisdiction
over Picozzi's claims. Judge Rufe recently struck those documents and ordered the Clerk of
Court to return them to Picozzi in light of the fact that the case had been closed.
C.

Picozzi's Third Case: Civil Action Number 18-2033

At the same time Picozzi filed his Complaint in Civil Action Number 18-2032, Picozzi
filed another Complaint that was docketed as Picozzi v. McKeown, Civ. A. No. 18-2033 (E.D.
Pa.) and assigned to Judge Goldberg. In Civil Action Number 18-2033, Picozzi named Sue
McKeown, Frank McKeown, Terry McKeown, Paddie Riley, and Francis Janson (identified in
the caption as Frais Janson) as Defendants. Picozzi essentially alleged that he fathered children
with Sue McKeown and Paddie Riley but that those women hid the children from him, and that
some of the other Defendants affected his mind via the television. Exhibits attached to the
Complaint indicated that Janson was an attorney who Picozzi contacted about his claims and
reflected that other Defendants had asked Picozzi to stop contacting them or they would report
him to the police, presumably for harassment.
In a Memorandum and Order docketed on May 21, 2018, Judge Goldberg granted Picozzi
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his Complaint with prejudice. As with
Picozzi's Complaint in Civil Action Number 18-2032, Judge Goldberg concluded that some of
Picozzi's allegations appeared delusional and that, to the extent he was raising state law claims,
there was no basis for diversity jurisdiction. Picozzi was not given leave to amend based on

5

Judge Goldberg's conclusion that amendment would be futile. Nevertheless, he returned ten
days later and filed assorted letters and documents in support of his claims.

D.

Picozzi Sues Judge Goldberg and Judge Rufe: Civil Action Numbers 182201, 18-2238, and 18-2239

Apparently disappointed with Judge Goldberg and Judge Rufe's rulings in his cases,
Picozzi initiated three lawsuits based on the dismissals of his Complaints, seeking to proceed in

forma pauperis in each one. On May 25, 2018, Picozzi filed a Complaint against Judge
Goldberg, Picozzi v. Goldberg, Civ. A. No. 18-2201 (E.D. Pa.), essentially claiming that Judge
Goldberg violated his rights or otherwise wronged him by dismissing his Complaint in Civil
Action Number 18-2033. Picozzi indicated that he would like Judge Goldberg to meet with him,
call him, or write to him. Picozzi subsequently filed a "statement" in his case containing
allegations about his attorney, his ex-wife, and a will. He attached the will as an exhibit.
On May 29, 2018, Picozzi filed two Complaints, the first of which was docketed as

Picozzi v. Goldberg, Civ. A. No. 18-2238 (E.D. Pa.), and named Judge Goldberg as a Defendant
along with Clerk of Court Kate Barkman, and two members of the Clerk's Office staff. The
Complaint in Civil Action Number 18-2238 took issue with Judge Goldberg's dismissal of
Picozzi's Complaint in Civil Action Number 18-1998, and indicated that Picozzi would like to
"have a meeting" with the Judge. (Civ. A. ".'Jo. 18-2238, Compl. ECF No. 2 at 6.) The
Complaint did not raise any allegations against the other Defendants.
The second Complaint filed on May 29, 2018 was docketed as Picozzi v. Ruff /sic}, Civ.
A. No. 18-2239 (E.D. Pa.), and named as Defendants Judge Rufe (incorrectly spelled Judge
Ruff), two members of the Clerk's Office staff, and an individual named Leslie Szabo. The
Complaint in Civil Action Number 18-2239 took issue with Judge Rufe's dismissal of Picozzi's

6

Complaint in Civil Action Number 18-2032. As with Civil Action Number 18-2238, it was not
clear why Picozzi included the other individuals as Defendants.

E.

Civil Action Number 18-2210

On May 25, 2018, the same date that Picozzi filed his first case against Judge Goldberg,
Picozzi filed a new Complaint against Francis Gerard Janson, the attorney who had previously
been included as a Defendant in Civil Action Number 18-2033. Picozzi's new Complaint was
docketed as Picozzi v. Janson, Civ. A. No. 18-2210 (E.D. Pa.), and assigned to the Honorable C.
Darnell Jones II. Picozzi alleged that he sought Janson's advice regarding his allegations of
harassment and sexual assault, his allegations that women were hiding children from him, and in
regard to a will. In a Memorandum and Order docketed on June 1, 2018, Judge Jones granted
Picozzi leave to proceed in forma pauperis, construed his Complaint as raising legal malpractice
claims, and dismissed the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the parties
were not diverse. Picozzi was not given leave to file an amended complaint, but the dismissal of
his claims was without prejudice to his assertion of any claims against Janson in state court.

F.

Civil Action Number 18-2235

On the same day that Picozzi filed his second case against Judge Goldberg and his first
case against Judge Rufe, he also filed a personal injury Complaint against nineteen defendantsDr. Allen Snyder, Kimberly Groew, Dr. Stein, Khan Mohammad, Leslie Szabo, Lefton BPH
Skewlec, Saul Miller, Bruce Sizer, Segal Aaronson, Sharon Picozzi (his ex-wife), .. Boyfriend",
Dr. Denisa Perice, Bill Clemens, D. Enpawo, Judy Stevenson, "Murphy", Mike Hand Brother,
Frank Capano, and Phila D.M. Construction. The case was docketed as Picozzi v. Snyder, Civ.
A. No. 18-2235 (E.D. Pa.), and assigned to Judge Jones.

7

Picozzi alleged that in August of 2015, he was admitted to the hospital for
gastrointestinal bleeding. While in the hospital, he alleges that he '"die[d] a few time[s]." (Civ.
A. No. 18-2235, Compl. ECF No. 2 at 6.) Dr. Capano and Dr. Perice "had IO IV in [him]" and a

blonde nurse put a tube in his mouth and poured liquid down his throat so that he would not die.
(Id.) Picozzi stated that Dr. Snyder informed him that he would be on oxygen and would walk

with a walker for the rest of his life. Picozzi "then ... found out they put something in [his)
prevent [sic] parts" and alleged that Dr. Snyder knew about "something in [his] air way." (Id.)
After Picozzi was released from the hospital, "this guy Murphy & Jim and Brain [sic] Donahue
tr[ied] to beat [him] up 3 time[s]." (/d.) He also alleged that he was beat up at an Alcoholics
Anonymous meeting and filed a police report to that effect. The Complaint suggested that
Picozzi returned to the hospital and was told he had heart failure. Picozzi alleged that he hears
noises, cannot have sex because his "penis won't get hard," cannot urinate correctly, and has
difficulty breathing. (Id. at 7.) Picozzi sought to proceed in forma pauperis, but it was not clear
what relief, if any, he sought from the Court.

G.

Civil Action Number 18-2277

On :May 31, 2018, Picozzi filed a new personal injury Complaint naming three
Defendants-Allen Robert Snyder, William J. Benz, and Officer Brown-which was docketed
as Picozzi v. Snyder, Civ. A. No. 18-2277 (E.D. Pa.) and assigned to the Honorable Gene E.K.
Pratter. The case was essentially based on a charge filed against Picozzi for harassing Dr.
Snyder. Picozzi alleged that he received "a non-traffic citation summons ... for calling Dr.
Allen Robert Snyder for help." (Civ. A. No. 18-2277, Compl. ECF No. 2 at 6.) Picozzi
contended that he was only calling the Doctor for help and believes that the Doctor "'put
something in [his] air way and something in [his] privet [sic] parts." (Id.)

8

Picozzi contended that Officer Brown interviewed him for his "side of they [sic] story."

(Id. at 10.) It appears that Officer Brown filed the harassment charge against Picozzi. Picozzi,
however, alleges that he does not think Dr. Snyder should have pursued the charge.
A review of public dockets reflects that on April 26, 2018, Picozzi was charged in Bucks
County with one count of"Harassment - Course of Conduct W/No Legitimate Purpose."
Commonwealth v. Picozzi, Docket No. MJ-07201-NT-0000075-2018. The docket reflected that

on May 23, 2018, Magistrate Judge William J. Benz found Picozzi guilty of harassing Dr.
Snyder. According to the Complaint, Picozzi attended a hearing (presumably the summary trial)
and told Judge Benz what Dr. Snyder allegedly did and also informed him that "this guy murphy
from Aria Hospital had me beat up in [an] A.A. meeting." (Civ. A. No. 18-2277, Compl. ECF
No. 2 at 6.) He also apparently informed the Judge that his private parts were swelling. Despite
his testimony, Picozzi was "found ... guilty of phone harassment." (Id.)
Picozzi's Complaint and attachments also referenced the carpenters' union, suggested
that the union is involved with the hospital, discussed various individuals and events including
an incident related to a casino, and mentioned a divorce, but it was not clear how any of those
allegations related to Picozzi's claims against Dr. Snyder, Judge Benz, or Officer Brown. Again,
Picozzi sought to proceed informa pauperis but it was not clear what relief he sought from the
Court.

H.

Picozzi Sues Judge Jones and Judge Pratter: Civil Action Number 18-2324

On June 4, 2018, Picozzi filed a new Complaint naming the four Judges who had been
assigned cases he filed in this Court- .Judge Goldberg, Judge Rufe (incorrectly spelled Judge
Ruff), Judge Jones, and Judge Pratter-as well as an employee of the Clerk's Office. The
Complaint appeared to be predicated entirely on Picozzi's dissatisfaction with Judge Jones's

9

dismissal of his Complaint in Civil Action Number 18-2210. Picozzi listed reasons why he
believes the dismissal was improper and also appeared to reference allegations that were
contained in complaints that were not before Judge Jones. Picozzi sought leave to proceed in
forma pauperis but did not request any particular relief from the Court.

I.

Civil Action Number 18-2327

On the same day Picozzi filed Civil Action Number 18-2324, Picozzi also filed a
Complaint against nine defendants, i.e., Robert L. Katzenstein (a divorce attorney), Judge Frge,
Picozzi's ex-wife Sharon, Linda C. Frederick, Steve Tomas (an employee of this Court's Clerk's
Office), Officer ~ark Werth, Middle Town Police, "Mary from Medicare," and Mr. Romaciki
(identified as a "prison Guard in court room"). As with all of his other cases, Picozzi sought to
proceed in forma pauperis. Picozzi's claims appeared to be predicated primarily on a motion for
a protection from abuse order that his ex-wife filed against him in the family division of the
Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, and related proceedings. However, as with his other
Complaints, Picozzi diverged into allegations that did not relate to the parties sued.
Katzenstein apparently asked if Picozzi would like him to serve as his attorney,
presumably in connection with a hearing related to his ex-wife's petition. During their
discussion, Picozzi "told him what happen[ ed] to [him] up here in Doylestown went to Buck
[sic] county for two days for nothing" and adds that he thinks "they were trying to put [him] in
prison." (Civ. A. No. 18-2327, Compl. ECF No. 2 at 3.) It was not clear to whom "they" refers.
Picozzi attended a hearing in court on April 11, 2018. During the hearing "[ t ]he judge keep say a
buddy of[his] dad's name[d] Mr. Sullivan said it lik[e] 4 or 5 time[s] like he worked there" and
Katzenstein said "derogatory things" to Picozzi. (/d.) Picozzi alleged that he "'[kept] [his] mouth
shut" because he "wasn't sure what was going on." (Id.) He contended that he experienced a

10

mental breakdo\\-n from the '"harassment" he experienced. (Id. at 4.) It appeared that Judge Frge
presided over the hearing and issued Picozzi's ex-wife a protection from abuse order against
Picozzi.
In an attachment to the Complaint, Picozzi suggested that there was a link between the
deaths of two of his friends, and suggested that third-parties- -including Harry McKucking ~nd
members of the McKeown family whom he has sued in other cases- -were behind the protection
from abuse order, the deaths, and/or other bad things that are happening to him. Picozzi also
believes tha~ his ex-wife "lied on the abuse order." (Id., ECF No. 2-1 at 1.) He again referenced
the carpenters' union and alleged abuses at the convention center, and questioned whether "some
people in city hall" were involved in that corruption. He appeared to believe that his ex-wife
tried to kill him and had members of the carpenters' union come to his house "looking at stuff in
[his] garage it was on this T.V. stuff." (Id. at 3.) The rest of his allegations are rambling and
suggest that Picozzi is pursuing a conspiracy theory. Picozzi also attached various documents to
his Complaint, most of which related to the protection from abuse order sought by his ex-wife,
and the rest of which did not clarify the bac;is for additional claims.

J.

Judge Kearney Dismisses Seven of Picozzi's Cases

Civil Action Numbers 18-2201, 18-2235, 18-2238, 18-2239, 18-2277, 18-2324, and 182327 were all assigned to the Honorable Mark A. Kearney. In a June 8, 2018 Memorandum and
Order, Judge Kearney granted Picozzi leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his cases and
dismissed them all after screening them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Judge Kearney
dismissed all of Picozzi's claims against Judges Goldberg, Rufe, Jones, and Pratter because those
Defendants were all entitled to absolute judicial immunity from Picozzi's claims, which were
based on the manner in which they handled his lawsuits. Judge Kearney likewise dismissed all

11

of Picozzi's claims against Court staff because Picozzi failed to allege any facts supporting a
claim against them and, to the extent they were sued based on their roles in handling his cases,
they were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.
Turning to Civil Action Number 18-2235, Judge Kearney construed the Complaint as
raising medical malpractice claims. However, as in many of his prior cases, Picozzi had not pled
a basis for the Court's jurisdiction over those state law claims. In any event, it appeared that the
parties were not diverse, so Judge Kearney dismissed the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Judge Kearney next addressed Civil Action Number 18-2277, which primarily asserted
claims based on Picozzi's prosecution for harassing Dr. Snyder. Judge Kearney construed the
Complaint as raising claims pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983; he dismissed claims against a state
judge as barred by absolute judicial immunity, and dismissed claims against a police officer due
to Picozzi's failure to plead a sufficient factual basis for a constitutional claim against the officer.
In any event, any malicious prosecution claims were not cognizable because Picozzi' s
underlying conviction remained intact. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
Picozzi also failed to provide a basis for a claim against Dr. Snyder because Dr. Snyder is not a
state actor subject to liability under § 1983 and the Court lacked jurisdiction over any state law
claims against him.
Judge Kearney then turned to Civil Action Number 18-2327, which he construed as
raising claims pursuant to§ 1983 based on the protection from abuse order that Picozzi's ex-wife
sought against him in state court. Judge Kearney observed that Picozzi failed to allege what
most of the named Defendants did so as to be liable to him and, accordingly, failed to state a
claim against those Defendants. Picozzi's claims against the state judge who issued the order

12

were barred by absolute judicial immunity. Furthermore, Picozzi's ex-wife and her attorney
were not state actors subject to liability under§ 1983 and, as with Picozzi's many other state law
claims, there was no basis for diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Kearney concluded that "[a]fter careful review of [Picozzi's] rambling and often
disturbing complaints in a frenzied filing over three weeks, we must find Mr. Picozzi has abused
the privilege of proceeding informa pauperis." In re: Picozzi, No. 18-CV-2201, 2018 WL
2768879, at *8 (E.D. Pa. June 8, 2018). Accordingly, Judge Kearney gave Picozzi until June 18,
2018 "to show cause why he should not be enjoined from filing any more civil non-habeas cases

in this Court without prepayment of the filing fee and administrative fee." Id.

K. Picozzi's Twelfth Case: Civil Action Number 18-2439
On June 11, 2018, Picozzi filed a Complaint against Mr. Jeff Murry, John Bellatyne,
Douglas J. McCarron, David llaines, William Banfield, Robert Weakley, Lisa Husband from
Briagadome Farm, Jim Iquito, Coleen Iquito, Robert Naughton, Marc L. Gelman, Jennings
Sigmond, and Thomas McGoldrick, as well as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See

Picozzi v. Murry, Civ. A. No. 18-2439 (E.D. Pa.). The Complaint alleged that Picozzi "would
like to bring to the attention of the Phila. courts in case 18-2032[ 2 ]

•••

that there [might] be more

defendants involve[ d) in the case from another district in the carpenter union Local 277 of New
York." (Civ. A. No. 18-2439, Compl. at 6.) The remainder of the Complaint contained
allegations similar to those in Picozzi's other filings, which are often rambling and disjointed,
and concern people who have allegedly caused him harm and a possible conspiracy related to the
carpenter's union.
2

A-; noted above, Civil Action No. 18-2032 was assigned to Judge Rufe, who dismissed
Picozzi's Complaint in that matter without leave to amend. See Picozzi v. Guy Peiagelee &
Sons, No. 18-CV-2032, 2018 WL 2293939 (E.D. Pa. May 17, 2018).
13

Judge Kearney granted Picozzi leave to proceed in forma pauperis and concluded that
there was no basis for subject matter jurisdiction over Picozzi's Complaint, which appeared to
raise tort claims under Pennsylvania law. Judge Kearney also observed that Picozzi failed to
allege a basis for federal question jurisdiction and that he could not state a constitutional claim
based on any alleged failure to investigate or prosecute individuals or entities that may have
caused him harm. Picozzi was also reminded that he was obligated to respond to Judge
Kearney's show cause order as to why he should not be enjoined from further filing in forma
pauperis.

L. Picozzi Files Three New Cases Against Judicial Defendants and Others
On June 18, 2018, Picozzi filed a new civil action in which he seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis, which was docketed as Picozzi v. McKeown, Civ. A. No. 18-2532 (E.D. Pa.). Picozzi
named thirty (30) Defendants, among them Judges Goldberg, Rufe, Jones, Pratter, and Kearney,
as well as Chief Judge Lawrence F. Stengel and Clerk of Court Kate Barkman. He also named
the following individuals, some of whom have been named as Defendants in other filings and
some of whom are new: Rev. Williams McKeown, Dr. Brendin Greer, Gary Martin, Sandy
McKuckin, Jim Gannon, John Curci, Joseph Notinghan & Sr., Steve Young, Rev. Father
Kurvara, Jack Boderford, Elizabeth Morales-Rosa, Charles Ericakason, Joseph Orka, Allen
Bigalow, Monsignor of Our Lady Grace, Kohler & Associates, Jack (Owner of Pen Jersey),
Ronnie Franise Carpent, John Masington, Shamass Boyle Jr., and Samie Boccella. Picozzi
indicates that the events giving rise to his claims took place over nearly two decades, between
1999 and 2018.
In his Complaint in Civil Action Number 18-2532, Picozzi seeks to "bring the attention
of the phila courts" that there "mite [sic] be more defendant[s] [involved] in the cases that were

14

going to the phila. courts at 601 Market Street." (Civ. A. No. 18-2532, Compl. at 7.) He
surmises that "it [is] kind of odd how every case [of his] was dismiss[ed] with prejudice" and
argues that the Judges who have presided over his cases may be "involved with the [other]
defendant[s]." (Id.) Once again, the remainder of the Complaint contains disjointed allegations
similar to th9se in Picozzi's other filings; they concern people who have allegedly caused him
harm, people who might have information about others who caused him harm or who are
associated with individuals who caused him harm, and a possible conspiracy related to the
carpenters' union and a casino. Picozzi does not specify what relief he seeks but indicates that if
Judges or Court staff are "invole [sic] with the defendant[ s ]" then "they should come out and tell
the phila. courts what they know about the cases." (Id.)
On June 21, 2018, Picozzi filed his fourteenth civil action in which he seeks to proceed in
forma pauperis, which was docketed as Picozzi v. McCormack, Civ. A. No. 18-2616 (E.D. Pa.).

Picozzi named three (3) Defendants: Dan McCormack and Steve Tomas, who are employees of
this Court's Clerk's Office, as well as Mary Finn, Picozzi's godmother. Picozzi again indicates
that, again, he would "like to bring to the attention to the phila. courts in case 18-2032 that there
mite [sic] be more defendant[s] in the cases [that] work for the phila. PA. courts." (Civ. A. No.
18-2616, Compl. at 3.) Picozzi alleges that "every time [he] drop[s] a complaint off [at the
Court, McCormack and Tomas] act funny." (Id.) According to Picozzi, on one occasion, he
wanted to "ask Mr. McCormack some question [and] he ran away and [hid]." (Id.) He also
alleges that Tomas gave him a different form on another occasion. (Id. at 6.) Picozzi further
vaguely alleges that

~ary

Finn "know[s] some of these people [and might] be involve[d] with

the money being exchange[ d]." (Id.) As with some of his other cases, Picozzi suggests that his
new case is somehow related to Civil Action Number 18-2032 and his belief that the carpenter's

15

union is involved in a conspiracy against him. He does not specify any injuries or relief sought
from the Court.
On June 26, 2018, Picozzi's active cases were reassigned from Judge Kearney to Judge
Savage. That day, Judge Savage dismissed Civil Action Number 18-1998, due to Picozzi's
failure to file an amended complaint in that case, as noted above. On July 2, 2018, Picozzi filed
his fifteenth in forma pauperis action, which was docketed as Picozzi v. Brady, Civ. A. No. 182771 (E.D. Pa.). Picozzi named as Defendants Congressman Robert Brady, Dennis Devene,
Harry McKeown, Steve Sterlane, Adrine Melairie, Mr. McMenamin, Jay Jackson, Bruce ("think
marry to miss McKeown sister"), Judge Savage, and Marc L. Gelman.
As with his most recent filings, Picozzi again alleges that he would "like to bring to the
Phila. courts attention there mite [sic] be more defendants in case: 18-2032." (Civ. A. No. 182771 Comp!. at 8.) His allegations are again disjointed and rambling, and concern people who
have allegedly caused him harm as well as the possible conspiracy regarding the carpenters'
union. It appears that Picozzi has named Judge Savage as a Defendant because several of
Picozzi's cases were assigned to him and perhaps because Judge Savage dismissed Civil Action
Number 18-1998. Specifically, Picozzi states that Judge Savage "must tell the Phila. courts what
he know[s] about each case[]" and asks whether Judge Savage is related to an Eddy Savage.
(Compl. at 17.)

M.

Picozzi's Cases are Reassigned

As Picozzi has now sued the six other Judges assigned to his cases and the Chief Judge,
his pending cases were reassigned to the undersigned. At this juncture, the Court must address
Civil Action Numbers 18-2532, 18-2616, and 18-2771, as well as the matter of whether Picozzi
should be enjoined from further filings in light of his litigation behavior.

16

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court grants Picozzi leave to proceed in forma pauperis in Civil Action Nos. 18-

2532, 18-2616, and 18-2771, because it appears that he is not capable of paying the fees to
commence these actions. Accordingly, the Court is required to screen his Complaints under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the Court to dismiss Picozzi's Complaints if, among
other things, they are frivolous or fail to state a claim. A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact," Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and is
legally baseless if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Deutsch v. United
States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995).

Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e )(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the
same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to

determine whether the complaint contains ''sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id.
Moreover, "if the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). As Picozzi is proceedingpro se, the Court
construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att 'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
Moreover, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A
district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8 if "the
complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if
any, is well disguised." Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted).

17

This Court has noted that Rule 8 "requires that pleadings provide enough information to put a
defendant on sufficient notice to prepare their defense and also ensure that the Court is
sufficiently informed to determine the issue." Fabian v: St. Mary's Med Ctr., No. Civ. A. 164741, 2017 WL 3494219, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2017) (quotations omitted).

III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Civil Action Nos. 18-2532, 18-2616, and 18-2771

1. Conspiracy Claims
The theme running through Picozzi's most recently filed cases appears to be that the
Judges assigned to his cases, the Chief Judge of this Court, and Clerk's Office staff, have
conspired with the carpenter's union and/or other individuals who have caused Picozzi harm.
That theory appears to be predicated on Picozzi' s unhappiness with the dismissal of his cases and
his translation of that dissatisfaction into a conclusion that the basis for those dismissals is an
association or conspiracy with third parties, rather than the reasons set forth in the memoranda
and orders explaining the reasons for dismissal. The Court will liberally construe those claims as
conspiracy claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the FBI, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
"[T]o properly plead an unconstitutional conspiracy, a plaintiff must assert facts from
which a conspiratorial agreement can be inferred." Great W Mining & Mineral Co., 615 F.3d at
178. "[A] bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556 (2007). To state a claim for a judicial conspiracy, a complaint should allege facts
concerning "the approximate time when the [conspiratorial] agreement was made, the specific
parties to the agreement (i.e., which judges), the period of the conspiracy, [and] the object of the
conspiracy." Great W. Mining & Mineral Co., 615 F.3d at 179.

18

Here, Picozzi has not alleged any specific basis for the claimed conspiracy. Instead, he
appears to be basis his claims on speculation and an irrational conclusion that his losses in Court
must somehow be related to the carpenter's union or his struggles with third parties over the
course of several decades. Those allegations do not state a plausible basis for a conspiracy claim
and rise to the level of factually frivolous. 3

2. Judicial Immunity
The Court understands Picozzi to be pursuing claims against Judges Goldberg, Rufe,
Jones, Pratter, Kearney, and Savage based upon their dismissal of his previous cases and, in
some cases, their assignment to his cases. The basis for his claims against Chief Judge Stengel is
unclear, although Picozzi is presumably basing his claims upon the Chief Judge's reassignment
of Picozzi' s cases to the other judges. As Picozzi does not specify the legal basis for his claims,
the Court construes them as claims for violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to Bivens.
Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from civil rights claims based on acts or
omissions taken in their judicial capacity, so long as they do not act in the complete absence of
all jurisdiction. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978); Soto v. Sleet, 458 F.
App'x 89, 90 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (concluding that federal judge was entitled to immunity
because "[t]he allegations in Soto's complaint relate to action or inaction taken by the District
Court in his capacity as a judge"); Harvey v. Loftus, 505 F. App'x 87, 90 (3d Cir. 2012) (per
curiam) (same). "Judicial immunity attaches even if the act was done in furtherance of a
conspiracy." Harvey, 505 F. App'x at 90 (citing Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 26-27 (1980)).

3

ln the event the Complaints in Civil Action Numbers 18-2532, 18-2616, and 18-2771 can be
construed to raise Bivens claims against the other individuals identified as Defendants based on
having conspired with federal judges or Clerk's Office staff, those claims fail for the same
reasons as Picozzi's conspiracy claims fail. See Abulkhair v. Google LLC, --- F. App'x ---,No.
18-1584, 2018 WL3038437, at *1 n.2 (3d Cir. June 19, 2018).
19

Here, Picozzi's claims against Judges Goldberg, Rufe, Jones, Pratter, Kearney, and Savage are
all based on the manner in which those Judges handled his civil lawsuits or because they have
been assignment to his cases. His claims against Chief Judge Stengel are presumably based on
Chief Judge Stengel's reassignment of his cases. As Picozzi sued all of those Judges for acts or
omissions taken in their judicial capacity, judicial immunity clearly applies and there is no legal
basis for any of Picozzi's lawsuits against those Judges. 4
Picozzi has again named Clerk of Court Kate Barkman and Clerk's Office employees
Dan McCormack and Steve Tomas as Defendants in these matters. Presumably, Picozzi has
named the Clerk of Court because of her role in signing the Orders directing reassignment of his
cases at the direction of Chief Judge Stengel. Picozzi has named McCormack and Tomas as
Defendants based on their roles in handling his cases as Court staff. All three of these
Defendants are therefore entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. See Gal/as v. Supreme Ct. of

Pennsylvania, 211F.3d760, 769 (3d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, even if Clerk's Office staff acted
"funny" in addressing Picozzi, neither those allegations nor any of his other allegations against
Court staff suggest a conspiracy or support a plausible basis for a constitutional violation.

3. Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction
With respect to the remaining Defendants, Picozzi's allegations suggest that he is
primarily trying to raise state law tort claims against them. 5 As an initial matter, with respect to
Mary Finn, the third Defendant in Civil Action No. 18-2616, Picozzi has failed to raise any clear

4

The reassignment of cases is an act taken within the Chief Judge's judicial capacity. Cf Gochin
v. Haaz, No. CV 16-5359, 2017 WL4475973, at *6 (E.D. Pa. May 10, 2017) ("Reassignment of
cases is an action within the President Judge's judicial capacity."), affd, 724 F. App'x 155 (3d
Cir. 2018); see also 28 U.S.C. § 137.
5

The Court cannot discern any non-frivolous basis for a federal claim.
20

allegations stating what Finn has done or why she is liable to him. Accordingly, he has failed to
state a claim against her.
In any event, the only independent basis for the Court's jurisdiction over Picozzi' s state
law tort claims against the remaining Defendants is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which
grants a district court jurisdiction over "all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between ... citizens of
different States. " 6 Diversity jurisdiction requires "complete diversity," which in turn requires
that "no plaintiff be a citizen of the same state as any defendant." Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co.

v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010). Picozzi's Complaints in Civil Action No. 18-2532,
18-2616, and 18-2771 indicate that Picozzi and at least some of the Defendants are citizens of
Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Picozzi's claims against these Defendants
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

B.

Pre-Filing Injunction

As explained above, by Order entered on June 8, 2018, Judge Kearney directed that
Picozzi show cause on or before June 18, 2018 as to why the Court should not enjoin him from
filing "any future civil non-habeas cases which he seeks to pursue in this Court to be subject to
... pre-filing review before granting the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis. '' Judge
Kearney explained that absent a response, the Court "may enjoin Mr. Picozzi's future in forma

pauperis in this Court without further notice."
A district court may enjoin "abusive, groundless and vexatious conduct'' pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a), the All Writs Act. Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993).
However, this "broad scope of ... power ... is limited by two fundamental tenets of our legal

6

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would be inappropriate here.
21

system-the litigant's due process and access to the courts." Id. "There are three requirements
that must be met before a court may issue such an injunction: '( 1) the litigant must be continually
abusing the judicial process; (2) the litigant must be given notice of the potential injunction and
an opportunity to oppose the court's order; and (3) the injunction must be narrowly tailored to fit
the specific circumstances of the case."' Holman v. Hooten, No. 11-78, 2015 WL 3798473, at *7
(E.D. Pa. June 17, 2015) (quoting Grossberger v. Ruane, 535 F. App'x 84, 86 (3d Cir. 2013));
see also Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329, 332 (3d Cir. 1990) (noting that a pre-filing
injunction is "an extreme remedy that must be narrowly tailored and sparingly used"). While
"prose litigants are not entitled to special treatment," Brown v. City of Phi/a., Nos. 05-4160, 062496, 06-5408, 08-3369, 2009 WL 1011966, at * 15 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2009), the use of a prefiling injunction against a prose litigant "must be approached with caution." Grossberger, 535
F. App'x at 86 (citing In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982)).
Here a pre-filing injunction is necessary. A'i noted above, Picozzi has filed fifteen (15) in
forma pauperis cases in this Court in less than two months. After his first few cases were
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, he began suing Judges on this Court for
dismissing his Complaints as well as Clerk's Office staff. Picozzi has also sued the Chief Judge
and Clerk of Court over the reassignment of his cases. None of his cases have set forth a
plausible claim for relief over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction. Furthermore, if the
Court understands Picozzi correctly, he appears to be primarily fixated on a vast conspiracy
theory- which has no basis in fact-involving the Judges, Court staff, the carpenters union, and
others who have done him harm in various ways. Pico7.zi's behavior demonstrates that he will
continue to file similar lawsuits on a rapid basis, continually adding more defendants as possible
participants in the alleged conspiracy, and that any time. he receives an unfavorable ruling from a

22

Judge, he will name that Judge as a defendant in a new case. In less than two months, he has
already sued seven of the eighteen active judges on this Court. Considering this pattern, and the
pace at which Picozzi has filed cases, the Court concludes that Picozzi has "continually abus[ed]
the judicial process." Holman, 2015 WL 3798473, at *7 (quoting Grossberger, 535 F. App'x at
86). Indeed, considerable judicial resources have been spent by the Court and Court staff
addressing the constant reassignment and disposition of Picozzi' s cases.
Moreover, Judge Kearney's June 8, 2018 Order directed Picozzi to show cause as to why
he should not be enjoined from filing cases in forma pauperis in light of his abuse of that
privilege. Rather than respond, Picozzi filed new cases (Civil Action Nos. 18-2532 and 182616) and included Judge Kearney as a Defendant. Picozzi also filed Civil Action No. 18-2771
naming Judge Savage as a Defendant. Thus, the Court provided Picozzi with the requisite
opportunity to oppose the imposition of a pre-filing injunction, satisfying the second prong of
G rossberger.

Having satisfied the requirements for issuing a pre-filing injunction, the Court must
fashion a narrowly tailored injunction. The Court considered limiting the injunction to the
Defendants already sued by Picozzi or to the subject matter raised in his previously-filed
lawsuits. However, the list of individuals who have apparently harmed Picozzi is vast and the
incidents of which Picozzi complains are numerous, span over almost two decades (at least), and
cannot be clearly confined to a type of subject matter. He has named as defendants federal
judges, state judges, his ex-wife, attorneys, a congressman, family members of his ex-wife,
individuals who have allegedly assaulted him, individuals whom he clai!TIS are associated with
the carpenter's union, individuals with whom he may have fathered children, and individuals
associated with other defendants or who may or may not know something about the matters

23

troubling Picozzi. There is no apparent limiting principle--e.g., a limit on defendants, subject
matter, case number, or time frame- -that would prevent Picozzi's litigious behavior because, as
his recent complaints suggest, the possible list of defendants associated with those who have
done in harm or who may be involved in a conspiracy against him continues to expand.
Accordingly, the Court does not believe such an injunction would be sufficient to curb Picozzi's
behavior.
The Court will nevertheless enjoin Picozzi from filing new civil cases in forma pauperis
with the exception of any habeas cases or, should he end up incarcerated, cases challenging the
conditions of his confinement. Picozzi will also be prevented from filing any documents or
motions in the cases he has already filed, with the exception of a notice of appeal or a motion for
reconsideration of the Order accompanying this Memorandum. As the Court could not discern a
limiting principle based on subject matter or named defendants, the Court will impose a temporal
limitation and direct that the injunction last for two years from the date of this Memorandum and
Order. Picozzi is on notice, however, that if he repeats the same pattern of abusive, litigious
behavior after the injunction expires, he may be subject to another injunction.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Picozzi leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss Picozzi's Complaints in Civil Action Nos. 18-2532, 18-2616, and 18-2771.
Picozzi will not be given leave to amend because amendment would be futile. The Court will
subject Picozzi to a prefiling injunction as set forth in the following Order.
BY THE COURT:

GERALD A. MCHUGH, J.

24