BANKS v. SONG et al

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. For the reasons stated in the Order attached herewith, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 1 ) is DENIED and his complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. PLAINTIFF IS PUT ON EXPLICIT NOTICE THAT ALL FUTURE NON-COMPLIANT FILINGS WILL NOT BE DOCKETED BY THE COURT, BUT RATHER WILL BE RETURNED TO PLAINTIFF WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLANATION. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 8/4/2017. (kg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FREDERICK BANKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOO SONG, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 17-mc-632
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
On December 8, 2015, this Court issued an Order designating Plaintiff a vexatious
litigant. (See Civil Case No. 15-1400, Doc. 7). Pursuant to that Order, Plaintiff “is enjoined
from filing, without prior authorization of the Court, any complaint, lawsuit or petition for writ
of mandamus,” and “must file a motion for leave to file along with any new complaint, lawsuit
or petition for writ of mandamus that he proposes to file, and must attach a copy of this Order to
it.” (Id.). In addition, the Court’s December 8, 2015 Order states that “as an exhibit to any
motion seeking such leave, there must be attached a declaration prepared pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1746 or a sworn affidavit certifying that (a) the document raises a new issue that has never
been previously raised by the filer in this or any other court, (b) the claim or issue is not
frivolous, (c) the document is not filed in bad faith, and (d) a statement as to the basis for
jurisdiction and venue in the Western District of Pennsylvania.” (Id.).
Since the Court issued its Vexatious Litigant Order, Plaintiff has filed or attempted to file
at least 22 new lawsuits, as well as numerous frivolous motions to reopen earlier actions. (See
Civil Action Nos. 15-mc-882, 15-mc-877, 15-mc-885, 15-mc-936, 15-cv-1385, 15-cv-1400, 151

cv-1439, 15-cv-1584, 16-mc-58, 16-mc-61, 16-mc-79, 16-mc-80, 16-mc-335, 16-mc-650, 17mc-515, 17-mc-604, 17-mc-619, 17-mc-620, 17-mc-632, 17-mc-668, 17-mc-669, 17-mc-670,
17-mc-671, 17-mc-672, 17-mc-673, 17-mc-674). None of these various petitions, complaints
and/or motions comply with the Court’s December 8, 2015 Order.
Most of Plaintiff’s recent lawsuits, including this one, arise out of the criminal
proceedings instituted against him at Criminal Action No. 15-168. Among other things, Plaintiff
seems to take issue with his continued confinement pending the district court’s determination
regarding his competency to stand trial. In addition to being deficient due to their failure to
comply with this Court’s December 8, 2015 Order, these various petitions and complaints are
patently frivolous. As Judge Hornak aptly stated in a recent order:
Banks himself bears significant if not exclusive responsibility for
any such delay in th[e] Court’s rendering a competency
determination due to the nature of his repetitive pro se filings of
similar tenor on this Court's docket (despite this Court’s repeated
instruction to make any such filings through counsel pending such
determination), particularly as to the content of such filings (for
example, seeking sanctions in the form of “Black Magik” and
purportedly engaging Ms. Ivanka Trump (yes, the President's
daughter) in his pursuits in this Court)).
(Criminal Action No. 15-168, Doc. 414).
Unfortunately, Plaintiff has made clear that he does not intend to stop filing these
frivolous lawsuits. On July 17, 2017, the public record reflects that Plaintiff called Judge
Hornak’s chambers “to advise the Court in advance that he was going to file 700 complaints
against this Court.” (Criminal Action No. 15-168, Doc. 402).
Simply put, Plaintiff has refused to abide by the Court’s December 8, 2015 Order and, as
an appropriate sanction, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. See Mindek v. Rigatti,
964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992) (finding dismissal with prejudice appropriate when parties
“refuse to abide by prescribed rules of court” and “will not obey court orders”); Orama v. Boyko,
2

243 Fed. Appx. 741, 743 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming the dismissal of an action with prejudice as an
appropriate sanction in light of the plaintiff’s “willful decision not to comply with past orders,
and expressed intention not to comply with future orders, making it impossible to ready the
matter for trial, and rendering alternative sanctions ineffective”).
Furthermore, the Court hereby reiterates to the Clerk’s Office that, under the terms of the
undersigned’s Vexatious Litigant Order, it is not to accept and/or docket (including in any
miscellaneous docket) any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, complaint,
petition, or other filing by Plaintiff on his behalf (or on behalf of Plaintiff’s alias “Hamilton
Brown”), even if transferred from other another district court, unless it is accompanied by the
required Motion for Leave and declaration, AND the Court has granted leave. Plaintiff is
forewarned that any Motion for Leave and/or declaration is subject to the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and that the Court will not hesitate to consider sanctions
should the Court find that Plaintiff has violated Rule 11.
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED and his complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice. PLAINTIFF IS PUT ON EXPLICIT NOTICE THAT ALL FUTURE NONCOMPLIANT FILINGS WILL NOT BE DOCKETED BY THE COURT, BUT RATHER
WILL BE RETURNED TO PLAINTIFF WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLANATION.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

August 4, 2017

s/Cathy Bissoon
.
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

CC (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record
cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
FREDERICK BANKS
05711068
NEOCC
2240 Hubbard Rd.
Youngstown, OH 44505

4