The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4:31 pm, Jun 15, 2022
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------X U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
IN RE: CASES FILED BY MEMORANDUM &
DAVID MICHAEL TROTMAN, JR. ORDER
CV 19-3788 (GRB)(LB)
CV 18-7469 (GRB)(LB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
Pro se plaintiff David Michael Trotman, Jr. filed these § 1983 actions while incarcerated
in 2018 and 2019. The 2019 action is brought against several corrections officers for allegedly
stealing his mix-tapes, permitting an assault involving splashing him with liquids and slashing his
leg and conspiring to ruin his rap career. Docket Entry (“DE”) 1, CV 19-3788, Complaint
(“Compl.”). Finding that his property claims were insufficient as a matter of law and that Trotman
had failed to allege the personal involvement of any defendant in the assault claim, the Court
dismissed the initial complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b); 1915(e)(2)(B). See
Trotman v. Herod, No. CV-17-3788 (GRB)(LB), 2020 WL 5043934, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26,
2020).1 He subsequently filed an amended complaint, which was dismissed in part. DE 21, 24.
In the 2018 action, Trotman complains of various conditions and aspects of incarceration
in Suffolk County. DE 11, CV 18-7469. The Court dismissed the majority of plaintiff’s claims in
the amended complaint, a document “replete with hate speech that serves no litigation purpose
other than to harass and disparage.” See DE 23 at 16. At that time, the Court noted that the use of
such irrelevant hate speech “arguably requires dismissal of the complaint as malicious under 28
1 Mr. Trotman, a repeat litigant, has had several other cases dismissed for failure to state a valid claim. See, e.g.,
Trotman v. C.S.H., No. 17-CV-716, 2018 WL 701276 (E.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2018); Trotman v. C.S.H., 738 F. Appx 249
(4th Cir. 2018); Trotman v. C.S.H., 770 F. Appx 135 (4th Cir. 2019); Trotman v. Bock, No. 18-CV-2481 (KAM)(L,
DE 41 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019); Trotman v. Doe, No. CV 18-7469 (GRB)(LB), 2020 WL 5097236, at *9
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020); Trotman v. Sposato, et al., No. CV 18-2711 (GRB)(LB), DE 87 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24,
2021), adopted by, Electronic Order dated September 16, 2021.
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)” but declined to do so, instead cautioning plaintiff that future gratuitous
invective “will result in dismissal of the complaint.” Id. Nevertheless, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
second motion to amend the complaint. See DE 27 at 6, DE 36.
On December 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed an Order to Show Cause with the Court in the
2019 action, mailing a package that contained food items and packaging. DE 26, CV 19-3788.
The Clerk returned the filing, which was defective in several other ways. As a result, the Court
issued the following order:
PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY ADVISED AND WARNED THAT, IN LIGHT OF
SECURITY AND SANITARY CONCERNS AS WELL AS THE CURRENT
PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, IF HE MAILS ANYTHING OTHER
THAN WRITTEN DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT IN ANY FUTURE
FILINGS, SUCH MATERIALS WILL BE DESTROYED AND DISPOSED
OF WITHOUT FURTHER REVIEW. ANY VIOLATIONS OF THIS
ORDER MAY RESULT IN MORE SIGNIFICANT AND SERIOUS
SANCTIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DISMISSAL OF HIS
CASES.
Electronic Order dated December 16, 2020 (emphasis original). On May 31, 2022, Mr. Trotman
filed a letter noting a change of address. Notwithstanding the Court’s unequivocal warning, he
smeared the envelope with his own blood. DE 73 at 2. That the substance appears to be blood is
self-evident, but Mr. Trotman put the question to rest by noting that the bloodstains are the product
of a nosebleed. Id. Then, to add insult to injury, Mr. Trotman adorned the envelope, which he had
delivered to this Court, with graphic descriptions of sexual activity.2 Id.
Mr. Trotman’s inexcusable conduct also extended to his 2018 action. In a letter to the
Court, an Assistant County Attorney handling the matter represented that:
2 These filings are not the only examples of plaintiff’s contumacious behavior. He has, on many occasions, filed
documents adorned with obscene, racist and graphically sexual marginalia and otherwise acted inappropriately. See,
e.g., DE 36 at 2 (references to “Dead Ass ‘Bitch’ My Ho”); DE 71 at 12-16 (transcript of conference with
inappropriate comments by plaintiff directed to a United States Magistrate Judge).
the plaintiff has sent correspondence to this office that have been contaminated by what
appears to be bodily fluids and waste. . . .The plaintiff has done this on several prior
occasions. Beyond the simply disgusting nature, this practice is dangerous and creates
a health hazard for anyone who must come in contact with the plaintiff’s repeated
mailings.
CV 18-7469, DE 44 at 1 (noting that to scan the document for the Court, the writer had to don
rubber gloves and then sanitize the scanner). An examination of color scans provided by the
County Attorney makes it plain: the correspondence sent by Mr. Trotman to opposing counsel
appears intentionally soiled with feces and/or blood. DE 44-1 & 44-2. The bloodstained change
of address letter was also filed by Mr. Trotman in the 2018 action, see DE 48, the record of which
is replete with Mr. Trotman’s inappropriate rantings. See, e.g., DE 19 at 7-8, DE 40 at 3. Earlier
instances of filings bearing similar contamination appear on the Court’s docket. See, e.g., DE 35
at 8-11.
DISCUSSION
A court may dismiss a pro se action as a sanction where, as here, the plaintiff continues to
engage in inappropriate conduct even after being warned that such conduct may result in the
sanction of dismissal. See, e.g., James v. Kuhnle, No. 19-CV-1175 (KAM) (JMW), 2022 WL
1525488, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2022), adopted by, 2022 WL 2046679 (E.D.N.Y. June 7, 2022)
(dismissing pro se action where “plaintiff has litigated in bad faith, despite being put on notice that
his conduct may result in dismissal”). Here, as in James, “Plaintiff’s conduct was entirely
inappropriate and ran afoul of any acceptable boundaries of decency,” and is therefore subject to
dismissal under this Court’s inherent authority. 2022 WL 1525488, at *1–2. Worse yet, by filing
papers spattered with blood, plaintiff violated this Court’s express order, creating an independent
ground for dismissal.
Based on the foregoing, the actions are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is
directed to send a copy of this order to the plaintiff and close the cases.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
June 15, 2022
/s/ Gary R. Brown _____
GARY R. BROWN
United States District Judge