state proceeding. See Four Keys Leasing, 849 F.2d at 773.
Here, Murray's removal petition alleges only that "removing
parties is and has been denied by such state court proceeding
the rights secured and guaranteed to the removing parties by the
laws providing for equal civil rights of citizens of the United
States." Murray does not recite any specific facts in support of
his vague and conclusory assertion. Accordingly, the Court finds
that the petition is insufficient on its face, and the case must
be remanded to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
Notably, the present case is the fifth one filed by Murray in
the past eight months. On November 27, 2000, he filed Murray v.
Hi-Cite Corp., 00-CV-6984, which this Court dismissed on July
19, 2001; on December 20, 2000, he filed Murray v. Pollack,
00-CV-7505, which is still pending before this Court; on
February 5, 2001, he filed Murray v. Johnson, 01-CV-635, which
is still pending before this Court; on June 1, 2001, he filed
Murray v. Goldman, 01-CV-3745, which the Court dismissed on
June 9, 2001; and on July 3, 2001, he filed the instant action.
In addition to pursuing these five cases, in the past eight
months, Murray has pursued his first case filed in this Court,
In re James Murray, 96-CV-3723. In particular, Murray filed
two motions for reconsideration of the Court's March 12, 1999,
decision affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of his
Chapter 13 petition. The Court denied both motions. The instant
decision is the seventh written decision this Court has issued
since June 9, 2001, in a case filed by Murray.
In a decision issued by the Court earlier this week, the Court
stated that "Murray would be well-advised to limit his
submissions to this Court." The Court also informed Murray that
it has the authority to sanction him and to prevent him from
filing further lawsuits. See Malley v. New York City Bd. of
Education, 112 F.3d 69, 69 (1997) (affirming imposition of
injunction against future filings in light of litigant's
"persistence in pursuing the same meritless claims wherever his
papers are accepted by a clerk of court"); Maduakolam v.
Columbia Univ., 866 F.2d 53, 56 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that
Rule 11 sanctions can be applied to pro se litigants, while
their status as "untutored in the law" can be taken into
account). Given that Murray filed the present suit prior to the
Court's warning to rein in his overly-litigious behavior, the
Court will not impose sanctions or issue an injunction in
response to Murray's filing of the removal petition in this
case. However, Murray is on notice that the Court may do so in
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the plaintiffs' removal petition is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to remand
this case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk
County; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.