The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
IFEOMA EZEKWO,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 21-9936 (RMB/SAK)
v.
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., OPINION
et al.,
Defendants.
BUMB, U.S. District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon the Judgment from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [Docket No. 16] and accompanying Opinion,
both of which are dated May 3, 2022, vacating the Court’s Preclusion Order [Docket
No. 5] and Order denying reconsideration [Docket No. 12], and remanding this
matter for further proceedings. Having fully considered the reasoning set forth in the
Third Circuit’s Opinion, the Court intends to clarify its earlier rulings herein. In
addition, the Court shall enter an Amended Preclusion Order, given Plaintiff Ifeoma
Ezekwo’s (“Plaintiff’s”) failure to respond to the Court’s third Order to Show Cause
in this action and set forth (1) why her claims in this case are not barred, and (2) why
the Court should not enter an Amended Preclusion Order, precluding Plaintiff from
filing a further action relating to matters currently pending or previously adjudicated
in this District, consistent with the Third Circuit’s Opinion. [Docket No. 17.]
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint in this action on April 19, 2021 [Docket
No. 1], alleging claims that appear to relate to matters that have already been fully
adjudicated in this District—such that Plaintiff’s Complaint would presumably be
barred by the doctrines of res judicata, claim preclusion, and/or as a duplicative
filing—and asserting such claims against a host of defendants—including multiple
judicial actors who presided over Plaintiff’s prior actions in this District, such that
Plaintiff’s claims against them would presumably be further barred by the doctrine of
judicial immunity.
As acknowledged by the Third Circuit in its recent Opinion, this Court, in
light of the above observations, sua sponte directed Plaintiff to show cause why this
case should be allowed to proceed. The Court issued two separate Orders to Show
Cause, dated April 23, 2021, and May 5, 2021, respectively, both of which required
Plaintiff to (1) explain why her case should not be dismissed for the above stated
reasons, and (2) why the Court should not enter an Order precluding her from
making further filings with the Court without first seeking Court approval. [Docket
Nos. 3, 4.] After the seven (7) day show-cause period from the Court’s first Order to
Show Cause expired without Plaintiff filing a response,1 the Court entered the second
Order to Show Cause [Docket No. 4]. The ten (10) day show-cause period from the
1 Because it was not clear that Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, received a copy of
the first Order to Show Cause, the Court instructed the Clerk of the Court to provide
Plaintiff with a copy of the Second Order to Show Cause via regular mail when it
was entered.
Court’s second Order to Show Cause then also expired without Plaintiff filing a
response. Thus, the Court entered the Preclusion Order, which, inter alia, (1)
prohibited Plaintiff “from filing a complaint under a new docket with this Court that
brings claims related to those in Civil Nos. 20-480, 20-12799, and 20-16187 without
express permission of this Court,” (2) required Plaintiff to “seek leave to file any
complaint by filing a letter with this Court of no more than two ordinary typed
pages, addressed to the undersigned and delivered to the Clerk of the Court, setting
forth valid reasons why the Court should allow the complaint to be filed,” and (3)
directed the Clerk of the Court to close this case. [Docket No. 5, at 2–4 (emphasis
added).]
On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the
Court’s Preclusion Order. [Docket No. 6.] While her motion was pending, Plaintiff
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit of the Court’s Preclusion Order, which
was docketed at C.A. No. 21-2404. [Docket Nos. 7, 9.] The Court subsequently
denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration while Plaintiff’s appeal was pending.
[Docket No. 12.] On September 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed a second Notice of Appeal to
the Third Circuit as to the Court’s Order denying her Motion for Reconsideration,
which was docketed at C.A. No. 21-2700. [Docket Nos. 13, 15.] The Third Circuit
consolidated Plaintiff’s appeals, and on May 3, 2022, vacated the Court’s Preclusion
Order [Docket No. 5] and Order denying reconsideration [Docket No. 12],
remanding this matter for further proceedings. [Docket No. 16.]
II. LEGAL STANDARD
As this Court recognized when it entered its earlier Preclusion Order, “[a] pre-
filing injunction is an exception to the general rule of free access to the courts and its
use against a pro se plaintiff must be approached with caution.” Gonzalez v. Feiner, 131
F. App'x 373, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982)).
Nevertheless, the Third Circuit has recognized that pre-filing injunction may be
warranted in certain circumstances:
It is well within the broad scope of the All Writs Act for a district court to
issue an order restricting the filing of meritless cases by a litigant whose
manifold complaints raise claims identical or similar to those that already have
been adjudicated. The interests of repose, finality of judgments, protection of
defendants from unwarranted harassment, and concern for maintaining order
in the court's dockets have been deemed sufficient by a number of courts to
warrant such a prohibition against relitigation of claims.
In re Oliver, 682 F.2d at 445.
Before imposing a pre-filing injunction, a District Court must (1) determine
that the situation presents “exigent circumstances, such as a litigant's continuous
abuse of the judicial process by filing meritless and repetitive actions,” (2) provide the
litigant with notice and the opportunity to “show cause why the proposed injunctive
relief should not issue,” and (3) narrowly tailor “the scope of the injunctive order . . .
to fit the particular circumstances of the case.” Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038
(3d Cir. 1993), as amended (May 26, 1993).
III. ANALYSIS
Having afforded Plaintiff with additional notice and a third opportunity to
show cause why a limited pre-filing injunction should not issue, the Court finds that
such an injunction is warranted in light of the present circumstances. The Court
turns to each of the three relevant factors in turn.
A. Plaintiff’s Repetitive Filings and Continued Abuse of the Judicial
Process
Without a doubt, the plaintiff in this case is a “frequent filer” with this Court
who routinely and frequently submits filings that are unintelligible, duplicative, and
aggressive towards the Judges presiding over Plaintiff’s numerous cases brought in
this District. Plaintiff also has a long history of routinely opening new actions with
this Court regarding matters that appear to have already been adjudicated or matters
that otherwise relate to other of Plaintiff’s already pending actions. See, e.g., Ezekwo v.
Quirk, Civil Action No. 15-3167 (SDW/LDW); Ezekwo v. City of Englewood, Civil
Action No. 20-480 (SDW/LDW); City of Englewood v. Ezekwo, Civil Action No. 20-
12799 (SDW/LDW); Ezekwo v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-16187
(SDW/LDW); Ezekwo v. Wigenton, Civil Action No. 21-1100 (RMB/AMD); Ezekwo
v. City of Englewood, et al., Civil Action No. 21-1848 (RMB/KMW); Ezekwo v.
Monaghan, et al., Civil Action No. 21-5155 (MAS/LHG); Ezekwo v. Bumb, Civil
Action No. 21-10630 (MAS/DEA); Ezekwo v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 21-10631 (MAS/DEA); Ezekwo v. City of Englewood, et al., Civil Action
No. 21-17515 (RMB/MJS); Ezekwo v. Pennymac Bank, et al., Civil Action No. 21-
18129 (RMB/AMD); Ezekwo v. City of Paterson, et al., Civil Action No. 22-1287
(RMB/SAK). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s continued filing of meritless and
repetitive actions in this District constitutes continued abuse of the judicial process
that must be addressed by the Court.
B. The Court’s Orders to Show Cause and Plaintiff’s Failure to
Respond
In an effort to preserve judicial resources, to prevent abuse of the federal court
system, and to discern which, if any, of Plaintiff’s claims should be allowed to
proceed, the Court entered the Prelusion Order [Docket No. 5], intending only for
this Court to serve as a screener/gatekeeper who would review Plaintiff’s
voluminous and frequent submissions and determine if Plaintiff was, in fact, alleging
duplicative claims therein. To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a
letter that clearly articulates the basis of her claims, and none of Plaintiff’s
submissions have included any relevant discussion regarding whether her claims
relate to those in Civil Action Nos. 15-3167; 20-480; 20-12799; or 20-16187, as
required by this Court’s two prior Orders to Show Cause. [Docket Nos. 3, 4, 17.]
C. The Scope of the Court’s Pre-Filing Injunction
The Court is mindful of the Third Circuit’s position that it erred in ordering
Plaintiff to obtain the Court’s permission before filing “any” complaint without
explaining why such a sweeping injunction was warranted in these circumstances.
[Docket No. 5, at 3.] The Court was attempting to achieve a result by which the
undersigned Judge would review Plaintiff’s frequent submissions, many of which
have been labeled as a complaint and/or filed under a new action by Plaintiff even
though they appear to assert duplicative claims previously asserted by Plaintiff in her
numerous, earlier-filed actions in this District. In any event, the Court’s Preclusion
Order did not have the effect of precluding Plaintiff from filing new actions with the
Court, which was of concern to the Third Circuit in its Order of remand. In fact,
since the Court entered the Preclusion Order in this case, a copy of which was put on
the docket in Plaintiff’s other active cases in this District for informational purposes,
Plaintiff has initiated at least three (3) new lawsuits. See, e.g., Ezekwo v. City of
Englewood, et al., Civil Action No. 21-17515 (RMB/MJS); Ezekwo v. Pennymac Bank,
et al., Civil Action No. 21-18129 (RMB/AMD); Ezekwo v. City of Paterson, et al., Civil
Action No. 22-1287 (RMB/SAK). Many of Plaintiff’s filings in Plaintiff’s most
recently filed lawsuits post-dating the Court’s Preclusion Order also appear to be
related to Plaintiff’s previously adjudicated or currently pending actions in this
District. While the parties might be different, the allegations contained therein are
the same, and despite this Court’s earnest efforts to discern Plaintiff’s claims—either
on its own or with clarification by Plaintiff—Plaintiff has steadfastly refused to
explain why these later filed lawsuits are not duplicative. But she must.
The Court understands the Third Circuit’s admonition that Plaintiff should be
permitted to access the Court and file cases unrelated to her previously filed lawsuits
(for which she must pay the Court’s filing fee at her peril). However, the Court finds
that there is still a strong need for it to continue its role as a screener/gatekeeper with
respect to claims asserted by Plaintiff, considering not only Plaintiff’s demonstrated
and continued abuse of the judicial process by filing meritless and repetitive actions,
but also the Court’s familiarity with Plaintiff’s historical suits and frequent
submissions. Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to assign any
subsequently filed action by Plaintiff to the undersigned Judge going forward for
screening purposes only. To the extent that Plaintiff files an action that appears to be
duplicative of her earlier-filed lawsuits in this District—including by naming a party
as a defendant whom Plaintiff has previously brought a suit against, by naming a
party as a defendant whom is a Judge who presided over other of Plaintiff’s actions
in this District, by asserting duplicative or similar causes of action, by filing new
causes of action that arise out of the same or similar transactions or occurrences
previously implicated in Plaintiff’s earlier-filed lawsuits, etc.—the Court will require
Plaintiff to show cause why her case is not duplicative and set forth valid reasons to
explain why her case should be allowed to proceed. To the extent that Plaintiff files
an action that is unrelated to her prior suits—either as determined by this Court upon
screening a subsequent complaint filed by Plaintiff or in the event that Plaintiff is able
to satisfy the Court that her claims are not duplicative—the Court shall direct the
Clerk of the Court to assign any such action to a Judge in this District according to
the Court’s established procedures for case assignment.
The Court finds that such a limited pre-filing injunction is appropriately
narrow in scope in light of the present circumstances, as Plaintiff will be allowed to
file new actions with the Court (provided that the filing fee is paid at her peril), but at
the same time, the Court will be able to expeditiously screen Plaintiff’s filings and
determine whether Plaintiff is, in fact, asserting duplicative claims therein.2 Thus, to
2 To the extent Plaintiff asserts any claim(s) of irreparable injury absent emergent
relief, the Court will expeditiously address any such claim(s).
the extent Plaintiff files an action unrelated to her earlier-filed actions in this District,
such action will be allowed to proceed in the ordinary course, past filing, provided
that the Court is able to determine that such a subsequently filed action by Plaintiff
is, in fact, unrelated to her previously filed lawsuits—either because it is obvious
from the pleadings or if Plaintiff has answered the Court’s questions—then the Clerk
will assign the case to a Judge in this District pursuant to the Court’s established case
assignment rules. However, the Court hastens to reiterate that just because Plaintiff
may be alleging claims against new defendants or asserting new causes of action, it
does not necessarily follow that such a case is unrelated to Plaintiff’s earlier-filed
suits. This Court must be in a position to determine whether it should dismiss
Plaintiff’s suits as duplicative or allow them to proceed as an unrelated action. Going
forward, the Court will also require Plaintiff to closely follow Local Rules 5(e) and
40.1(c), which, respectively, require Plaintiff to furnish to the Clerk of the Court a
completed civil cover sheet upon filing a civil complaint with the Court, and at the
time of filing, inform the Clerk of the Court in the appropriate field on such civil
cover sheet whether the claims asserted therein “gro[w] out of the same transaction
as any case already pending in this Court.” The Court believes that this procedure
does not run afoul of the Third Circuit’s recent Opinion.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, an Amended Preclusion Order, consistent with
this Opinion’s reasoning, shall issue.
Date: May 17, 2022 s/Renée Marie Bumb
Renée Marie Bumb
U.S. District Judge