Johnson v. Bond, Schoeneck & King LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00439-GTS-TWD

MICHAEL RUSSO,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00440-GTS-TWD

RUSHLOW ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00441-GTS-TWD

MONRO MUFFLER BRAKE & SERVICE,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00442-GTS-TWD

ROSETTI,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00443-GTS-TWD

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00444-GTS-TWD

GIBSON, McASKILL & CROSBY, LLP,

Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00445-GTS-TWD

TRUSTAGE,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00446-GTS-TWD

BOND, SCHOENECK & KING LLC,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00447-GTS-TWD

EMPRO,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00448-GTS-TWD

BITRATEGAMING,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00449-GTS-TWD

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION

OF HUMAN RIGHTS,

Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD

SYNCHRONY BANK,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00451-GTS-TWD

VERA HOUSE,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00452-GTS-TWD

BLACK RIVER APARTMENTS,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00453-GTS-TWD

HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00454-GTS-TWD

JEFFERSON COUNTY DSS,

Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00455-GTS-TWD

GIBBS,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00456-GTS-TWD

SCHENECTADY COUNTY EFCU,

Defendant.

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 5:22-cv-00457-GTS-TWD

ESIS, INC.,

Defendant.

THÉRÈSE WILEY DANCKS, United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, commenced the nineteen

(19) above-captioned actions on May 5, 2022, and, in lieu of paying the Northern District of

New York’s filing fee, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1

1 Plaintiff is a prolific pro se litigator and by Order to Show Cause filed May 6, 2022, Chief

United States District Court Judge Glenn T. Suddaby ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he

should not be enjoined from filing any future pleadings or documents of any kind (including

motions) in the Northern District of New York pro se without prior permission of the Chief

Judge or his or her designee (except pleadings or documents in an action that is open at the time

of the issuance of the Court’s anti-filing injunction or “Pre-Filing Order,” until that action is

closed). In re: Robert W. Johnson, Respondent, 22-pf-00003-GTS (N.D.N.Y.) (filed 05/06/22).

Between April 26, 2022, and May 5, 2022, a period of only ten (10) days, Plaintiff filed forty-

eight (48) pro se civil rights actions in this District, including the nineteen (19) actions at bar.

I. IFP APPLICATIONS

Plaintiff declares that he is unable to pay the filing fee for the above-captioned actions.2

The undersigned has reviewed each of Plaintiff’s IFP applications and determines that he

financially qualifies to procced IFP. Therefore, Plaintiff’s IFP applications are granted.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Section 1915(e), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed IFP if it determines that

the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998).

The Court must also dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, when the Court lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these

grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66,

72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,”

Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original).

A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (holding that “a

finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the

irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 (“[A]n action is ‘frivolous’

2 To that end, in each application to proceed IFP, Plaintiff declares that he is not incarcerated, he

is not employed, he has no take home wages, he has not received other income in the past twelve

months, he has no money in cash or in checking or savings account, he has no items of value, he

has no expenses, and he has no debts or financial obligations.

when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . or (2) the claim is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Having carefully reviewed the submissions at bar, the Court finds that they consist of

purported “appeals” from decisions and/or orders recently issued by the District of Vermont.3

See Johnson v. Russo, 5:22-cv-00439-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of

appeal of 2:22-cv-00045-WKS from the District of Vermont filed 02/14/22 and sua sponte

dismissed 04/07/22); Johnson v. Rushlow Enterprises, Inc., 5:22-cv-00440-GTS-TWD

(N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00049-WKS from the District of

Vermont filed 02/14/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/07/22); Johnson v. Monro Muffler Brake &

Service, 5:22-cv-00441-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-

cv-00030-WKS from the District of Vermont filed 02/07/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/07/22);

Johnson v. Rosetti, 5:22-cv-00442-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal

of 2:22-cv-00036-WKS from the District of Vermont filed 02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed

04/08/22); Johnson v. United States Postal Service, 5:22-cv-00443-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.)

(operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00042-WKS from the District of Vermont filed

02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/07/22); Johnson v. Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, LLP,

5:22-cv-00444-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00039-

WKS from the District of Vermont filed 02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/07/22); Johnson

v. Trustage, 5:22-cv-00445-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal of

3 The Court notes that a review of the District of Vermont’s CM/ECF System confirms this fact.

Upon review of the underlying actions, William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge for

the District of Vermont, warned Plaintiff: “In light of his history of multiplicitous litigation, Mr.

Johnson is warned that future frivolous filings with no connection to this District may result in a

filing injunction.” See, e.g., Johnson v. Monro Muffler Brake & Service, 2:22-cv-00032-WKS

(D. Vt.) ECF. Dkt. No. 2. Judge Sessions also certified that “under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) any

appeal of the dismissal would not be taken in good faith.” Id.

2:22-cv-00070-WKS from the District of Vermont filed 03/22/22 and sua sponte dismissed

04/07/22); Johnson v. Bond, Schoeneck & King LLC, 5:22-cv-00446-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.)

(operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00037-WKS from the District of Vermont filed

02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); Johnson v. EmPro, 5:22-cv-00447-GTS-TWD

(N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00033-WKS from the District of

Vermont filed 02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); Johnson v. Bitrategaming, 5:22-cv-

00448-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00040-WKS

from the District of Vermont filed 02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); Johnson v. New

York State Division of Human Rights, 5:22-cv-00449-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading

consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00032-WKS from the District of Vermont filed 02/10/22 and sua

sponte dismissed 04/08/22); Johnson v. Synchrony Bank, 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.)

(operative pleading consists of IFP application from the District of Vermont re: unassigned case

Johnson v. Synchrony Bank); Johnson v. Vera House, 5:22-cv-00451-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.)

(operative pleading consists of IFP application from the District of Vermont re: unassigned case

Johnson v. Vera House); Johnson v. Black River Apartments, 5:22-cv-00452-GTS-TWD

(N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00038-WKS from the District of

Vermont filed 02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); Johnson v. Human Resources

Administration Department of Homeless Services, 5:22-cv-00453-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.)

(operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00044-WKS from the District of Vermont filed

02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); Johnson v. Jefferson County DSS, 5:22-cv-00454-

GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00035-WKS from the

District of Vermont filed 02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); Johnson v. Gibbs, 5:22-

cv-00455-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00043-WKS

from the District of Vermont filed 02/10/22 and sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); Johnson v.

Schenectady County EFCU, 5:22-cv-00456-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists

of appeal of 2:22-cv-00081-WKS from the District of Vermont filed 04/04/22 and sua sponte

dismissed 04/08/22); Johnson v. ESIS, Inc, 5:22-cv-0057-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative

pleading consists of appeal of 2:22-cv-00041-WKS from the District of Vermont filed 02/10/22

and sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22). At the time of filing, Plaintiff was advised of the

impropriety of filing such actions in this District but insisted on doing so anyway.

Plaintiff has an extensive and abusive litigation history, and he is subject to numerous bar

orders/filing injunctions in at least the Southern District of New York, District of Connecticut,

Southern District of Ohio, and Eastern District of Ohio. See In re: Robert W. Johnson,

Respondent, 5:22-PF-0003 (GTS), 2022 WL 1443311 (N.D.N.Y.) (filed 05/06/22) (collecting

cases); see, e.g., Johnson v. Wolf, 1:19-cv-07337-GHW, Bar Order (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 07/13/20);

Johnson v. New York Police Dep’t, 1:20-cv-01368-CM, Bar Order (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 08/13/20);

Johnson v. Town of Onondaga, 1:19-cv-11128-CM, Bar Order (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 04/01/21);

Johnson v. Vera House, Inc., 3:22-CV-00314-SALM, Bar Order (D. Conn.) (filed 04/13/22);

Johnson v. Coe, 2:19-CV-02428-EAS, 2:19-CV-02490-EAS, 2:19-CV-02865-EAS, Bar Order

(S.D. Ohio) (filed 08/5/ 2019); Johnson v. Abel, No. 19-CV-2685, Bar Order (E.D. Ohio) (filed

08/05/19) (deeming Plaintiff a “vexatious” litigant and barring him from filing new pro se

actions without prior leave of court).

In addition to the foregoing bar orders, Plaintiff has been warned by the District of

Vermont4 and the Second Circuit that the continued filing of frivolous appeals could result in a

filing injunction. See Johnson v. Wolfe, 19-3891, 2020 WL 2544909, at *1 (2d Cir. May 7,

4 See, supra, note 3 of this Report-Recommendation and Order.

2020) (“Appellant has filed several frivolous matters in this Court, including his appeals

docketed under 2d Cir. 19-1688, 19-2174, 19-2235, 19-3657, 19-3889, 19-3891, and 19-4062.

Appellant has previously been warned against filing new frivolous appeals. See 2d Cir. 19-4062,

doc. 22; 2d Cir. 19-3889, doc. 49. Accordingly, Appellant is warned that the continued filing of

duplicative, vexatious, or clearly meritless appeals, motions, or other papers could result in the

imposition of both a monetary sanction and a sanction that would require Appellant to obtain

permission from this Court prior to filing any further submissions in this Court (a “leave-to-file”

sanction).”).

Moreover, in Johnson v. Vera House, 3:22-CV-00314-SALM (D. Conn.), supra, it was

ordered: “If Mr. Johnson files any action in any District Court within the Second Circuit in the

future, he must attach a copy of this Order to his Complaint. The District Courts of the Second

Circuit are the District of Connecticut; the District of Vermont; and the Eastern, Northern,

Southern, and Western Districts of New York.” Johnson v. Vera House, Inc., 3:22-CV-00314-

SALM, 2022 WL 829337, at *5 (D. Conn. Mar. 18, 2022) (emphasis in original). As noted,

Plaintiff commenced the nineteen (19) above-captioned actions in this District on May 5, 2022,

well after the District of Connecticut’s Order and yet Plaintiff failed to attach a copy of same.

Here, Plaintiff’s attempt to circumvent the warnings issued by the District of Vermont,

District of Connecticut, Southern District of New York, and the Second Circuit by filing the

nineteen (19) above-captioned “appeals” IFP in this District is wholly improper and frivolous.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).5 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

5 The Court notes that upon initial review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Judge Sessions found

that, in most of the complaints filed in the District of Vermont, Plaintiff failed to include

allegations specific to each named defendant and, several of the complaints were also barred by

Typically, a court should not dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint without granting leave

to amend “when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might

be stated.” Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1991). Inasmuch as the problem

with Plaintiff’s “appeals” are substantive and cannot be cured by a better pleading, the

undersigned recommends dismissal without leave to amend. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d

99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Moreover, Plaintiff has a history of filing multiple cases, often making

frivolous allegations, that are dismissed at the screening stage. See Johnson v. Progressive.com,

2020 WL 589127, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2020) (denying leave to amend “in light of Plaintiff’s

abusive litigation history”); Johnson v. Monro Muffler Brake & Service, 2:22-cv-00032-WKS

(D. Vt.) ECF. Dkt. No. 2. (same).

WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to proceed IFP are GRANTED for purposes of

initial review only; and it is further

RECOMMENDED that the nineteen (19) above-captioned actions be DISMISSED

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk provide Plaintiff with a copy of this Order and Report-

Recommendation, along with copies of the unpublished decisions cited herein in accordance

with Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

sovereign immunity or attempted to state claims against defendants with immunity in cases

seeking damages. See, e.g., Johnson v. United States Postal Office, 2:22-cv-00042-WKS (D.

Vt.) ECF. Dkt. No. 2.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen days within which to file

written objections to the foregoing report.® Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the

Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS WILL

PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing

Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

(Supp. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a).

Dated: May 11, 2022

Syracuse, New York

a Wiley Dancks :

United States Magistrate Judge

® If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order and Report-Recommendation by

mail, three additional days will be added to the fourteen-day period, meaning that you have

seventeen days from the date the Order and Report-Recommend was mailed to you to serve and

file objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Ifthe last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday,

Sunday, or legal holiday, then the deadline 1s extended until the end of the next day that is not a

Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed. R. Civ. 6(a)(1)(C).

11

2022 WL 1443311

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. (1) the litigant's history of litigation

United States District Court, N.D. New York. and in particular whether it entailed

vexatious, harassing or duplicative

IN RE: Robert W. JOHNSON, Respondent. lawsuits; (2) the litigant's motive in

pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the

5:22-PF-0003 (GTS)

litigant have an objective good faith

|

expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether

Signed 05/06/2022

the litigant is represented by counsel;

(4) whether the litigant has caused

Attorneys and Law Firms

needless expense to other parties or

Robert W. Johnson, Watertown, NY, Pro Se. has posed an unnecessary burden on

the courts and their personnel; and

(5) whether other sanctions would be

adequate to protect the courts and other

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

parties.

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

*1 Recently the undersigned determined that grounds may

Iwachiw, 396 F.3d at 528 (quoting Safir v. United States Lines,

exist to enjoin Robert W. Johnson (“Respondent”) from filing

Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 [2d Cir. 1986]).

any future pleadings or documents of any kind (including

motions) in this District pro se without prior permission of the

Here, after carefully reviewing the record, the Court

Chief Judge or his or her designee.

concludes that, unless he shows cause otherwise, Respondent

should be enjoined from filing any future pleadings or

It is well settled that “[a] district court may, in its discretion,

documents of any kind (including motions) in this District

impose sanctions against litigants who abuse the judicial

pro se without prior permission of the Chief Judge or his or

process.” Shafii v. British Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d

her designee (except pleadings or documents in an action that

Cir. 1996). Where a litigant persists in the filing of vexatious

is open at the time of the issuance of the Court's anti-filing

and frivolous suits, it may be appropriate to place certain

injunction, until that action is closed).

limitations on the litigant's future access to the courts. See

Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing *2 A review of Respondent's litigation history on the

Iwachiw v. New York State Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d District's Case Management / Electronic Case Filing (CM/

525, 528 [2d Cir. 2005]); see also Shafii, 83 F.3d at 571 (“The ECF) System reveals that, between April 26, 2022, and May

filing of repetitive and frivolous suits constitutes the type of 5, 2022–a period of only ten (10) days–Respondent filed

abuse for which an injunction forbidding further litigation forty-seven (45) pro se civil rights actions in this District:

may be an appropriate sanction.”). Before imposing such

limitations, the court should consider the following:

Case Number Date Filed

1. 5:22-cv-00463-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 04/26/22

2. 5:22-cv-00464-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 04/26/22

3. 5:22-cv-00465-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 04/26/22

4. 5:22-cv-00466-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 04/26/22

5. 5:22-cv-00467-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 04/26/22

6. 5:22-cv-00389-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 04/26/22

7 . 5 :22-cv-00396-GLS-ML ( N.D.N.Y.) 0 4/28/22

8. 5:22-cv-00403-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

9. 5:22-cv-00404-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

10. 5:22-cv-00405-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

11. 5:22-cv-00406-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

12. 5:22-cv-00407-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

13. 5:22-cv-00408-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

14. 5:22-cv-00409-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

15. 5:22-cv-00410-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

16. 5:22-cv-00411-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

17. 5:22-cv-00412-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

18. 5:22-cv-00413-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

19. 5:22-cv-00414-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

20. 5:22-cv-00415-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

21. 5:22-cv-00416-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

22. 5:22-cv-00417-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

23. 5:22-cv-00418-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

24. 5:22-cv-00419-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

25. 5:22-cv-00420-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

26. 5:22-cv-00421-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/02/22

27. 5:22-cv-00424-GLS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) 05/03/22

28. 5:22-cv-00425-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y.) 05/03/22

29. 5:22-cv-00426-BKS-ATB (N.D.N.Y.) 05/03/22

30. 5:22-cv-00439-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

31. 5:22-cv-00440-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

32. 5:22-cv-00441-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

33. 5:22-cv-00442-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

34. 5:22-cv-00443-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

3 6. 5 :22-cv-00445-GTS-TWD ( N.D.N.Y.) 0 5/05/22

37. 5:22-cv-00447-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

38. 5:22-cv-00449-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

39. 5:22-cv-00450-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

40. 5:22-cv-00451-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

41. 5:22-cv-00452-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

42. 5:22-cv-00453-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

43. 5:22-cv-00454-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

44. 5:22-cv-00455-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22

45. 5:22-cv-00457-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) 05/05/22.1

1 The Court notes that, before April 27, 2022, s (Dpo . n Vte t .d )i s (m fii ls es de d 0 0 24 /1/0 08 /2/2 22 ; ); s u2 a: 22 sp-c ov n- t0 e0 0 d3 is8 m-W issK eS d

Respondent filed two other actions in this 04/08/22); 2:22-cv-00039-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed

District, both of which were sua sponte dismissed. 02/10/22; sua sponte dismissed 04/07/22); 2:22-

See Johnson v. Hale, 9:15-cv-01513-GLS-TWD, cv-00040-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed 02/10/22; sua sponte

Decision and Order (N.D.N.Y. filed 04/25/16); dismissed 04/08/22); 2:22-cv-00041-WKS (D. Vt.)

Johnson v. Fischer, 1:19-cv-01384-TJM-DJS, (filed 02/10/22; sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22);

Decision and Order (N.D.N.Y. filed 03/23/20). 2:22-cv-00042-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed 02/10/22; sua

Even a cursory review of the 16 actions pending before the sponte dismissed 04/07/22); 2:22-cv-00043-WKS

undersigned (i.e., those whose case numbers are followed by (D. Vt.) (filed 02/10/22; sua sponte dismissed

the initials “GTS”) reveals that (1) they consist of purported 04/08/22); 2:22-cv-00044-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed

“appeals” from decisions and/or orders recently issued by the 02/10/22; sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); 2:22-

United States District Court for the District of Vermont,2 cv-00045-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed 02/14/22; sua sponte

and (2) Respondent was advised of the impropriety of filing dismissed 04/07/22); 2:22-cv-00049-WKS (D. Vt.)

such actions but insisted on doing so anyway. A review of the (filed 02/14/22; sua sponte dismissed 04/07/22);

remaining 29 actions reveals similar cavalier disregard for the 2:22-cv-00070-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed 03/22/22; sua

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (including Rules 8, 10 and sponte dismissed 04/07/22); 2:22-cv-00081-WKS

12).3 (D. Vt.) (filed 04/04/22; sua sponte dismissed

04/08/22).

2 The Court notes that a review of the District of 3 See, e.g., 5:22-cv-00463-MAD-TWD(N.D.N.Y.)

Vermont's CM/ECF System confirms this fact. See (operative pleading consists of a two-page motion

2:22-cv-00030-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed 02/07/22; sua for default judgment); 5:22-cv-00463-MAD-

sponte dismissed 04/07/22); 2:22-cv-00032-WKS TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists

(D. Vt.) (filed 02/10/22; sua sponte dismissed of a two-page motion for default judgment);

04/08/22); 2:22-cv-00033-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed 5:22-cv-00465-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.) (operative

02/10/22; sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); 2:22- pleading consists of a two-page motion for

cv-00035-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed 02/10/22; sua sponte default judgment); 5:22-cv-00466-MAD-TWD

dismissed 04/08/22); 2:22-cv-00036-WKS (D. Vt.) (N.D.N.Y.) (operative pleading consists of a two-

(filed 02/10/22; sua sponte dismissed 04/08/22); page motion for default judgment); 5:22-cv-00467-

2:22-cv-00037-WKS (D. Vt.) (filed 02/10/22; sua

consists of an “Appeal for Alleged Injunction”). 10/30/19; dismissed 08/27/21); 1:19-cv-1475-

*3 Finally, a similar abusive litigation history is revealed by JLS (W.D.N.Y.) (filed 08/30/19; dismissed

a review of the CM/ECF Systems for the Southern District 03/03/21); 1:19-cv-1484-JLS (W.D.N.Y.) (filed

08/30/19; dismissed 02/19/21); 1:19-cv-01529-

of New York,4 the Western District of New York,5 and (as

JLS (W.D.N.Y.) (filed 11/12/19; dismissed

previously indicated) the District of Vermont.6 Indeed, the

08/27/21); 1:20-cv-00269-JLS (W.D.N.Y.) (filed

Southern District of New York has at least three times barred 03/04/20; dismissed 08/28/21); 1:20-cv-00304-

Respondent filing pro se civil actions without further leave of JLS (W.D.N.Y.) (filed 03/13/20; dismissed

the Court.7 02/19/21); 1:20-cv-00346-JLS (W.D.N.Y.) (filed

03/23/20; dismissed 12/22/20).

4 See, e.g., 1:19-cv-02902-CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 6 See, supra, note 2 of this Order to Show Cause.

03/29/19; dismissed 05/22/19); 1:19-cv-03345-

VEC-RWL (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 04/12/19; dismissed 7 See Johnson v. Wolf, 1:19-cv-07337-GHW, Bar

11/02/20); 1:19-cv-05090-LLS (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Order (S.D.N.Y. filed 07/13/20); Johnson v.

05/29/19; dismissed 06/26/19); 1:19-cv-06272- New York Police Dep't, 1:20-cv-01368-CM, Bar

LLS (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 07/02/19; dismissed Order (S.D.N.Y. filed 08/13/20); Johnson v.

07/15/19); 1:19-cv-07111-CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Town of Onondaga, 1:19-cv-11128-CM, Bar Order

07/30/19; dismissed 11/25/19); 1:19-cv-07337- (S.D.N.Y. filed 04/01/21).

GHW (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 08/05/19; dismissed

Based on Respondent's abusive litigation history in this Court,

07/13/20); 1:19-cv-08157-MKV (S.D.N.Y.) (filed

the undersigned has difficulty finding that he possessed

08/30/19; dismissed 01/25/21); 1:19-cv-08249-

an objective good-faith expectation of prevailing in any

CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 09/03/19; dismissed

of his actions, which have caused, are causing and/or will

01/31/20); 1:19-cv-08508-CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed

cause needless expense to other parties and the Court.

09/10/19; dismissed 11/15/19); 1:19-cv-08662-

Moreover, given that Respondent has been advised of and

CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 09/18/19; dismissed

has disregarded the consequences of such abusiveness, the

11/12/19); 1:19-cv-08832-CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed

undersigned finds that other sanctions would be inadequate to

09/20/19; dismissed 12/03/19); 1:19-cv-09336-

protect other parties and the Court.

CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 10/07/19; dismissed

11/26/19); 1:19-cv-11127-CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed

Notwithstanding the overwhelming support for an anti-filing

12/02/19; dismissed 01/24/20); 1:19-cv-11128-

injunction, fairness dictates that Respondent be given notice

CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 12/02/19; dismissed

and an opportunity to be heard. See Iwachiw, 396 F.3d at 529.

01/27/20); 1:19-cv-11202-CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed

As a result, he shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of

12/05/19; dismissed 02/05/20); 1:19-cv-11831-

this Order to show cause, in writing, why he should not be

CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 12/20/19; dismissed

enjoined from filing any future pleadings or documents of any

02/14/20); 1:20-cv-01368-CM (S.D.N.Y.) (filed

kind (including motions) in this District pro se without prior

02/14/20; dismissed 08/13/20); 1:20-cv-03303-

permission of the Chief Judge or his or her designee (except

LLS (S.D.N.Y.) (filed 04/23/20; dismissed

pleadings or documents in an action that is open at the time

05/21/20).

of the issuance of the Court's anti-filing injunction, until that

5 See 1:05-cv-00658-RJA (W.D.N.Y.) (filed action is closed).

09/16/05; dismissed 07/21/10); 1:14-cv-00355-

RJA (W.D.N.Y.) (filed 05/12/14; dismissed *4 ACCORDINGLY, it is

06/03/14); 1:14-cv-0359-RJA (W.D.N.Y.) (filed

05/14/14; dismissed 06/12/17); 1:19-cv-00514- ORDERED that Respondent shall, within FOURTEEN (14)

EAW (W.D.N.Y.) (filed 04/01/19; dismissed DAYS of the date of this Order, show cause, in writing, why

01/13/20); 1:19-cv-01288-EAW (W.D.N.Y.) (filed he should not be enjoined from filing any future pleadings or

08/30/19; dismissed 03/29/21); 1:19-cv-01385- documents of any kind (including motions) in the Northern

JLS (W.D.N.Y.) (filed 09/05/19; dismissed District of New York pro se without prior permission of

documents in an action that is open at the time of the issuance and asserted against defendants who had been

of the Court's anti-filing injunction or “Pre-Filing Order,” previously sued by him in this Court on similar

until that action is closed);8 and it is further grounds), see In re: Leon R. Koziol, 15-AF-0005,

Order, at 2-5 & n.3 (N.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 19, 2019)

(Suddaby, C.J.) (collecting cases).

8 In addition, nothing in the injunction would (1)

ORDERED that, if Respondent does not fully comply with

hinder Respondent's ability to defend himself in

this Order, the Court will issue a subsequent order, without

any criminal action brought against him, or bring

further explanation, permanently so enjoining Respondent;

a habeas corpus action, or (2) limit his access

and it is further

as a plaintiff to any court other than the United

States District Court for the Northern District of

ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order

New York. However, the injunction would apply to,

to Respondent by certified mail; and it is further

among other things, continued filings of documents

by Respondent as a pro se plaintiff in the following

ORDERED that Respondent shall no longer email, call

actions: (1) an action opened by him in this Court

or visit the Clerk's Office of the U.S. District Court for

through the filing of a complaint, a motion, an

the Northern District of New York pro se. To the extent

application, or any other means; (2) an action

Respondent would like to file something with the U.S. District

opened by him in another federal district court and

Court for the Northern District of New York pro se (including

transferred to this Court, when that action clearly

his Response to this Order to Show Cause), he must do so by

should have been venued in this District, see In

mail.

re: Leon R. Koziol, 15-AF-0005, Order, at 2-3

& n.2 (N.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 19, 2019) (Suddaby,

C.J.) (collecting cases); and (3) an action opened All Citations

by him in state court and removed to this Court

by any party, when that action was laden with Slip Copy, 2022 WL 1443311

federal claims (especially claims based on grounds

End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2020 WL 2544909 because it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. U.S.C. § 1915(e).

Robert W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appellant has filed several frivolous matters in this Court,

v. including his appeals docketed under 2d Cir. 19-1688,

Catherine O’Hagan WOLFE, 19-2174, 19-2235, 19-3657, 19-3889, 19-3891, and 19-4062.

et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appellant has previously been warned against filing new

frivolous appeals. See 2d Cir. 19-4062, doc. 22; 2d Cir.

19-3891 19-3889, doc. 49. Accordingly, Appellant is warned that

| the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or clearly

May 7, 2020 meritless appeals, motions, or other papers could result in the

imposition of both a monetary sanction and a sanction that

Attorneys and Law Firms would require Appellant to obtain permission from this Court

prior to filing any further submissions in this Court (a “leave-

Robert W. Johnson, Pro Se

to-file” sanction). See In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229

S.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C., 19-cv-7337, Woods, J. (2d Cir. 1993); Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir.

1989) (per curiam).

Present: Pierre N. Leval, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Joseph F.

Bianco, Circuit Judges.

All Citations

Opinion

*1 Appellant, pro se, moves for leave to proceed in forma Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2020 WL 2544909

pauperis. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED

End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2022 WL 829337 York State, et al., 3:22CV00191(SALM) (Jan. 31, 2022);

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Johnson v. Kent, et al., 3:22CV00192(SALM) (Jan. 31,

United States District Court, D. Connecticut. 2022); Johnson v. Connell, et al., 3:22CV00207(SALM) (Feb.

7, 2022); Johnson v. McMahon, et al., 3:22CV00230(SALM)

Robert W. JOHNSON (Feb. 9, 2022); Johnson v. Davidson Automotive Group,

v. et al., 3:22CV00231(SALM) (Feb. 9, 2022); Johnson

VERA HOUSE, INC. and Marcus of Vera House, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights, et

al., 3:22CV00232(SALM) (Feb. 9, 2022); Johnson v.

Civ. No. 3:22CV00314(SALM) New York State, et al., 3:22CV00233(SALM) (Feb. 9,

| 2022); Johnson v. Powell, et al., 3:22CV00256(SALM)

Signed 03/18/2022 (Feb. 14, 2022); Johnson v. New York State Insurance

Company, 3:22CV00257(SALM) (Feb. 14, 2022); Johnson

Attorneys and Law Firms v. Moschouris, et al., 3:22CV00313(SALM) (Feb. 28, 2022);

Johnson v. Vera House, Inc., et al., 3:22CV00314(SALM)

Robert W. Johnson, Watertown, NY, Pro Se.

(Feb. 28, 2022).

The Court has now issued Initial Review Orders in

ORDER ENJOINING PLAINTIFF FROM FILING fourteen of these cases. In each instance, the Court has

FUTURE CIVIL ACTIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF found that dismissal was required because the Court

CONNECTICUT WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, the

Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could

SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

be granted, or the Complaint failed to comply with the

JUDGE

requirements of Rule 8. See Johnson v. Fenstermaker, et

*1 Self-represented plaintiff Robert W. Johnson al., 3:22CV00101(SALM), at Doc. #12 (Feb. 17, 2022);

(“plaintiff”), a resident of New York State, has filed Johnson v. Hilton, et al., 3:22CV00110(SALM), at Doc.

28 actions in the District of Connecticut since January #11 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Utica National Insurance

19, 2022. In each case, he has moved to proceed in Group, et al., 3:22CV00124(SALM), at Doc. #11 (Feb.

forma pauperis. See Johnson v. Fenstermaker, et al., 17, 2022); Johnson v. Chumsky, 3:22CV00145(SALM),

3:22CV00101(SALM) (Jan. 19, 2022); Johnson v. Pathfinder at Doc. #11 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Rusin, et al.,

Bank, et al., 3:22CV00109(SALM) (Jan. 20, 2022); 3:22CV00146(SALM), at Doc. #11 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson

Johnson v. Hilton, et al., 3:22CV00110(SALM) (Jan. 20, v. Connell, et al., 3:22CV00207(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 28,

2022); Johnson v. Utica National Insurance Group, et al., 2022); Johnson v. McMahon, et al., 3:22CV00230(SALM),

3:22CV00124(SALM) (Jan. 21, 2022); Johnson v. Sugerman at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Davidson Automotive

Law Firm, et al., 3:22CV00126(SALM) (Jan. 21, 2022); Group, et al., 3:22CV00231(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17,

Johnson v. Kim, et al., 3:22CV00138(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); 2022); Johnson v. New York State Division of Human Rights,

Johnson v. Brown, et al., 3:22CV00139(SALM) (Jan. 25, et al., 3:22CV00232(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022);

2022); Johnson v. Catalano, 3:22CV00140(SALM) (Jan. 25, Johnson v. New York State, et al., 3:22CV00233(SALM),

2022); Johnson v. Empower Federal Credit Union, et al. at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Powell, et al.,

3:22CV00141(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. EMPRO 3:22CV00256(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v.

Insurance, et al., 3:22CV00142(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); New York State Insurance Company, 3:22CV00257(SALM),

Johnson v. Comfort Inn Hotel, et al., 3:22CV00143(SALM) at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Moschouris, et al.,

(Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Watertown Savings Bank, et al., 3:22CV00313(SALM), at Doc. #7 (March 18, 2022); Johnson

3:22CV00144(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Chumsky, v. Vera House, Inc., et al., 3:22CV00314(SALM), at Doc. #7

3:22CV00145(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Rusin, (March 18, 2022).

et al., 3:22CV00146(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v.

Carthage Area Hospital Inc., 3:22CV00154(SALM) (Jan. 27, *2 The Court has also dismissed another ten of plaintiff's

2022); Johnson v. Loewenguth, et al., 3:22CV00167(SALM) cases due to plaintiff's failure to file a sufficient motion to

(Jan. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Michaels & Smolak, P.C., proceed in forma pauperis, or to pay the filing fee, after

without payment of fees and costs was insufficient. See the Court.

Johnson v. Pathfinder Bank, et al., 3:22CV00109(SALM),

at Doc. #10 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Sugerman Law

Firm, et al., 3:22CV00126(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, Johnson v. Fenstermaker, et al., 3:22CV00101(SALM),

2022); Johnson v. Kim, et al., 3:22CV00138(SALM), at at Doc. #13 (Feb. 17, 2022); see also Johnson v.

Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Brown, et al., Hilton, et al., 3:22CV00110(SALM), at Doc. #12 (Feb 17,

3:22CV00139(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson 2022); Johnson v. Utica National Insurance Group, et al.,

v. Catalano, 3:22CV00140(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 3:22CV00124(SALM), at Doc. #12 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson

2022); Johnson v. Empower Federal Credit Union, et al. v. Chumsky, 3:22CV00145(SALM), at Doc. #12 (Feb. 17,

3:22CV00141(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson 2022); Johnson v. Rusin, et al., 3:22CV00146(SALM), at

v. EMPRO Insurance, et al., 3:22CV00142(SALM), at Doc. Doc. #12 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. McMahon, et al.,

#9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Comfort Inn Hotel, et al., 3:22CV00230(SALM), at Doc. #8 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v.

3:22CV00143(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson Davidson Automotive Group, et al., 3:22CV00231(SALM),

v. Watertown Savings Bank, et al., 3:22CV00144(SALM), at Doc. #8 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. New York State

at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Loewenguth, et al., Division of Human Rights, et al., 3:22CV00232(SALM), at

3:22CV00167(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022).1 Doc. #8 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. New York State, et al.,

3:22CV00233(SALM), at Doc. #8 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson

1 In another four of plaintiff's cases, the Court v. Powell, et al., 3:22CV00256(SALM), at Doc. #8 (Feb. 17,

2022).

denied, without prejudice to re-filing, plaintiff's

motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

As the Court observed in the Notice, plaintiff is a resident of

as insufficient. See Johnson v. Carthage Area

New York. His claims to date have primarily been brought

Hospital Inc., 22CV00154(SALM), at Doc. #7

against other parties in New York, relating to events that

(Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Michaels & Smolak,

appear to have occurred in New York. There does not appear

P.C., 22CV00188(SALM), at Doc. #6 (Feb. 17,

to be any arguable connection to the District of Connecticut.

2022); Johnson v. New York State, et al.,

Plaintiff may be filing in alternative districts -- including,

22CV00191(SALM), at Doc. #6 (Feb. 17, 2022);

but not by any means limited to, the District of Connecticut

Johnson v. Kent, et al., 22CV00192(SALM), at

-- because he has been barred from filing in the Southern

Doc. #6 (Feb. 17, 2022). Plaintiff has filed a Notice

District of New York. See Johnson v. Town of Onondaga, No.

of Appeal in three of these cases.

1:19CV11128(CM), at Doc. #7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2021).

On February 17, 2022, the Court issued a Notice to plaintiff

in a number of his dismissed cases, cautioning him that he In addition to the Notice issued by this Court in February,

could be subject to an injunction prohibiting him from filing plaintiff has been previously warned by a number of courts

additional cases in this District without approval of the Court, against filing frivolous matters. See, e.g., Johnson v. Wolfe,

based on his history of filing meritless cases. The Court No. 19-3891, 2020 WL 2544909, at *1 (2d Cir. May

warned: 7, 2020) (cautioning plaintiff that the continued filing of

frivolous appeals could result in a filing injunction); Johnson

v. Coe, Nos. 2:19CV02428(EAS), 2:19CV02490(EAS),

The Court cautions plaintiff that the 2:19CV02865(EAS), 2019 WL 3543542, at *4 (S.D. Ohio

repeated filing of cases that lack Aug. 5, 2019) (order declaring plaintiff a “vexatious litigator”

any arguable legal merit, or fail to and imposing a filing injunction).

state a legitimate claim for relief

under federal law, will result in the *3 After the Court issued its Notice, plaintiff filed a number

imposition of sanctions. Specifically, of appeals, as well as two additional civil matters in this Court.

the Court will enter an injunction See Johnson v. Moschouris, et al., 3:22CV00313(SALM)

prohibiting the filing of further (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Vera House, Inc., et al.,

3:22CV00314(SALM) (Feb. 28, 2022) Each of those two new

matters, like the 26 that came before them, fails to state a

arguable basis for subject matter jurisdiction. entry of a dismissal order, was dismissed either as a result

of defects in the application to proceed in forma pauperis, or

“Federal courts have both the inherent power and the at the Initial Review stage, as lacking merit. A review of the

constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from national PACER Case Locator reveals that plaintiff has also

conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III filed at least 100 cases across the country in the past several

functions.” In re Martin Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir. years, including 15 cases in the District of Vermont in the

1984). “The filing of repetitive and frivolous suits constitutes month of February 2022, and at least eight in the District of

the type of abuse for which an injunction forbidding further New Jersey this year. As previously noted, other courts have

litigation may be an appropriate sanction.” Shafii v. British been forced to limit plaintiff's access because of his abuse of

Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1996). the system.

The second factor likewise weighs strongly in favor of a

[A] district court, in determining filing injunction. Plaintiff cannot have an “objective good

whether or not to restrict a litigant's faith expectation of prevailing[.]” Safir, 792 F.2d at 24.

future access to the courts, should In the Initial Review Orders in plaintiff's prior cases, the

consider the following factors: (1) Court articulated the defects in plaintiff's complaints and

the litigant's history of litigation the requirements for pleading in federal court. For example,

and in particular whether it entailed the Court has previously instructed plaintiff that a complaint

vexatious, harassing or duplicative must contain sufficient information to put a defendant on

lawsuits; (2) the litigant's motive in notice of the claims against him. The Court has informed

pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the plaintiff that a complaint must allege concrete harm, and that

litigant have an objective good faith this Court will dismiss frivolous suits. The Court has also

expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether informed plaintiff that any complaint must comply with the

the litigant is represented by counsel; requirements of Rule 8. Despite these prior orders, plaintiff

(4) whether the litigant has caused continues to file facially defective pleadings. Accordingly, the

needless expense to other parties or Court concludes that plaintiff does not have an objective good

has posed an unnecessary burden on faith expectation of prevailing on his claims.

the courts and their personnel; and

(5) whether other sanctions would be *4 The third factor, whether plaintiff is represented by

adequate to protect the courts and counsel, weighs against an injunction, because plaintiff is

other parties. Ultimately, the question self-represented.

the court must answer is whether a

litigant who has a history of vexatious The fourth factor, “whether the litigant has caused needless

litigation is likely to continue to abuse expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden

the judicial process and harass other on the courts and their personnel[,]” Safir, 792 F.2d at 24,

parties. weighs strongly in favor of an injunction. While this Court has

addressed all of plaintiff's claims at the initial review stage,

such that no defendant has been required to appear and answer

Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986). his complaints, the same has not always been true in other

courts. See, e.g., Johnson v. Adams No. 19-4061 (2d Cir. Dec.

Despite ample notice that the filing of frivolous actions will 6, 2019); Johnson v. Performant Recovery, Inc., et al., No.

not be permitted, plaintiff has not been deterred. The Court 4:19CV05789(SBA) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2019); Johnson v.

therefore considers, in light of the Safir factors, whether an Performant Recovery, Inc., et al., No. 20-15022 (9th Cir. Jan

injunction barring plaintiff from filing further actions without 7, 2020). Thus, plaintiff has caused “needless expense” to

leave of the Court is appropriate. other parties. Safir, 792 F.2d at 24.

The first factor weighs strongly in favor of an injunction. Moreover, even here in the District of Connecticut, where

defendants have not been required to respond because the

failure to pay the required filing fee, plaintiff has undoubtedly PERMANENT INJUNCTION as against plaintiff Robert

“posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their W. Johnson:

personnel[.]” Id.

Robert W. Johnson is hereby permanently enjoined from

Finally, the fifth factor weighs in favor of an injunction bringing any future case as a self-represented plaintiff in the

because “other sanctions would be [in]adequate to protect District of Connecticut without leave of the Court.

the courts and other parties.” Safir, 792 F.2d at 24. Plaintiff

claims to be indigent; although he spends a great deal of To seek leave of the Court to file a new action in this

money on postage for his court filings, he claims to have no District, Mr. Johnson shall file a motion of no more than

source of financial support and no expenses. Thus, financial three pages captioned “Application Pursuant to Court Order

sanctions would be meaningless and unenforceable. Plaintiff Seeking Leave to File.” He shall attach to this motion as

has been undeterred by the prior orders of this and other “Exhibit 1” the proposed Complaint he seeks to file. He shall

courts. No amount of explanation has affected plaintiff's attach as “Exhibit 2” to the motion a copy of this Order.

determination to continue asserting meritless claims. See

Johnson v. Adams, No. 19-4061, 2020 WL 2968458, at *1 The Clerk of the Court shall not file any future submission

(2d Cir. May 7, 2020) (“Appellant has filed several frivolous from Mr. Johnson of any kind, with the sole exception of a

matters in this Court[.] Appellant has previously been warned Notice of Appeal from this Order, without the approval of

against filing new frivolous appeals. Accordingly, Appellant the assigned judge. If Mr. Johnson files any submission, the

is warned that the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, Clerk shall provide the submission to the assigned judge to

or clearly meritless appeals, motions, or other papers could determine whether it complies with this Order.

result in the imposition of both a monetary sanction and a

sanction that would require Appellant to obtain permission If Mr. Johnson files any action in any District Court within

from this Court prior to filing any further submissions in the Second Circuit in the future, he must attach a copy

this Court[.]” (citations omitted)); Johnson v. New York of this Order to his Complaint. The District Courts of the

State Ins. Fund, No. 19CV11831(CM), 2020 WL 764036, Second Circuit are the District of Connecticut; the District of

at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2020) (noting plaintiff's “pattern Vermont; and the Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Western

of vexatious and frivolous litigation[,]” and the prior orders Districts of New York.

entered in the Southern District of New York which “directed

Plaintiff to show cause why a filing injunction should not Failure to comply with this Order will be sufficient grounds

be imposed[ ]”); Johnson v. May, No. 1:19CV01390(JBM) for this Court to deny any motion by Mr. Johnson for leave

(TSH), at Doc. #4 at 7 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2019) (“Plaintiff is to file.

cautioned that there must be a basis in law and fact for each of

his claims as well as a basis to allege those claims against the Nothing in this Order shall be construed as having any effect

named defendants. If there is no basis for a claim or a basis to on Mr. Johnson's ability to defend himself in any criminal or

allege a claim against any particular defendant, Plaintiff may civil action brought against him. Nothing in this Order shall be

be sanctioned.”). The Court therefore finds that no sanctions construed as denying Mr. Johnson access to the courts through

short of a filing injunction would be effective. Cf. United the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or other

States v. McLaughlin, No. 3:17CR00129(MPS), 2019 WL extraordinary writ. Nothing in this Order shall be construed

5538112, at *3 (D. Conn. Oct. 25, 2019); Miller v. Stallworth, as denying Mr. Johnson access to the United States Courts of

No. 3:19CV00484(CSH), 2019 WL 3080913, at *2 (D. Conn. Appeals. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as affecting

Jul. 15, 2019); Tibbetts v. Stempel, No. 3:97CV02561(CFD), any pending action previously brought by Mr. Johnson in any

2005 WL 2146079, at *8 (D. Conn. Aug. 31, 2005), aff'd sub forum.

nom., Tibbetts v. Dittes, 167 F. App'x 851 (2d Cir. 2006); In re

Martin-Trigona, 592 F. Supp. 1566, 1569-70 (D. Conn. 1984), It is so ordered this 18th day of March, 2022, at New Haven,

aff'd, 763 F.2d 140 (2d Cir. 1985). Connecticut.

Slip Copy, 2022 WL 829337

End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2020 WL 589127 contentions are clearly baseless ...; or (2) the claim is based

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”) (internal quotation

United States District Court, S.D. New York. marks and citation omitted).

Robert W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff,

v. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

PROGRESSIVE.COM, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff filed this complaint against multiple insurance

19-CV-11202 (CM) companies and other entities, including Progressive, Axxcess

| Insurance Agencies Ltd., New York Automobile Insurance

Signed 02/05/2020 Plan, Global Liberty Insurance Company, Arizona Premium

Finance, Chevrolet, ADESA, Nationwide, Victoria Fire &

Attorneys and Law Firms Casualty Company, Allstate, Geico, and AAA. Plaintiff seeks

Robert W. Johnson, Bronx, NY, pro se. “$999 trillion” in punitive damages, “$999 billion for future

pain and suffering,” and “100% ownership of corporation

assets, bank accounts & equities.” The complaint contains no

facts.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se

pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d at 474-75, Plaintiff's claims

*1 Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson, of the Bronx, New York, rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory

filed this complaint pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP). The on which he can rely. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33; Livingston,

Court dismisses this action for the reasons set forth below. 141 F.3d at 437.

District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity

to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is

STANDARD OF REVIEW

not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657

The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Because the defects in Plaintiff's

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, and in light

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) of Plaintiff's abusive litigation history, discussed below, the

(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend.

Cir. 2007). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these

grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings Plaintiff has filed scores of cases around the country in

liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), connection with a 2017 car accident in Buffalo, New York,

and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they and this complaint is consistent with his pattern of vexatious

suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, and frivolous litigation. In Johnson v. Wolf, ECF 1:19-

474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations CV-7337, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2019), Judge Wood, after

omitted) (emphasis in original). discussing Plaintiff's extensive litigation history, dismissed

Plaintiff's action as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon

A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either which relief may be granted, and for seeking monetary relief

in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 against Defendants who are immune from such relief; he also

(1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be barred

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez, from filing any future action IFP in this Court without prior

504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (holding that “finding of factual permission). Plaintiff did not file a declaration as directed,

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the but instead, on November 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of

level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston appeal, and that appeal is pending.1

A review of the Public Access to Court Electronic

Records (PACER) system reveals that since

November 5, 2019, Plaintiff has filed ten new CONCLUSION

actions in other federal district courts and,

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to

including this case, four new actions in this Court.

Plaintiff and note service on the docket.

See Johnson v. New York State Ins. Fund, ECF

1:19-CV-11831, 2 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 20. 2019);

The Court dismisses this action as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. §

Johnson v. Progressive.com, ECF 1:19-CV-11202,

1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

2 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 5, 2019); Johnson v. New

York State Dep't of Trans., ECF 1:19-CV-11127, 2

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any

(S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 2, 2019).

appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and

*2 By order dated January 27, 2020, entered in Johnson v. therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose

Town of Onondaga, ECF 1:19-CV-11128, 4 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,

Jan. 27, 2020), this Court also directed Plaintiff to show cause 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good

why a filing injunction should not be imposed. And at least faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

one other court has already barred Plaintiff from filing pro

se complaints without prior permission. See Johnson v. Abel,

No. 19-CV-2685 (E.D. Ohio Aug. 5, 2019) (deeming Plaintiff SO ORDERED.

a “vexatious” litigant and barring him from filing new pro se

All Citations

actions without prior leave of court).

Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 589127

The Court's prior warnings remain in effect.

End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.