IN RE: Robert E. Zorn

Filing 2

OPINION and ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 9/15/2009. (kak)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT : : : : :

In Re: Robert Zorn

File No. 1:09-MC-81

OPINION AND ORDER (Paper 1) Plaintiff Robert Zorn, proceeding pro se, has submitted a filing that seeks to combine several state court cases with a series of his previously-dismissed federal cases. Although

his filing is often incomprehensible, Zorn appears to be alleging that all of these cases, spanning several years and multiple public and private defendants, are linked by a common conspiracy to cause him injury. Because of Zorn's "proclivity for filing meritless and resource-consuming claims," the Court has barred him from filing suit without receiving judicial permission. v. Brown, File No. 1:05-CV-297 (Paper 50). See Zorn

The Court must

therefore review Zorn's filing to determine if it is "repetitive, meritless, frivolous, malicious, intended to harass, delusional, or otherwise barred." Id.

Zorn's filing seeks to remove cases from the Windsor and Chittenden County Superior Courts and combine them with at least six closed federal cases. The subject matter of the

federal cases ranged from a dispute with a neighbor to

allegations of corruption by various public officials. was unsuccessful in each case. Zorn now claims that he has new evidence.

Zorn

He attaches to

his filing a letter from an insurance company explaining why certain automobile accidents are included on his current driving record, and a letter from the Windsor County Superior Court rejecting his current and future filings if they are submitted pro se. (Paper 1-2 at 6, 13). It is not clear from

Zorn's submission how these letters relate to his claim that all persons and entities he has sued over the last several years "willfull[y] and maliciously orchestrated" a plan to cause him injury. Id. at 25.

The Supreme Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have held that an action is frivolous when the claim is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," or if "the `factual contentions are clearly baseless,' such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy." Nance v.

Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)); see also Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, Zorn sees a conspiracy brought about by insurance companies, individuals, the United States Government, state court judges, and a Vermont town. Even if the Court reads the

complaint in the required liberal fashion, it is compelled to

2

conclude that Zorn's claims lack either a believable factual basis or any conceivable legal merit. file is, therefore, DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this 15th day of September, 2009. The motion for leave to

/s/ J. Garvan Murtha Honorable J. Garvan Murtha Senior United States District Judge

3