Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MALLEY v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION

United States District Court, Southern District of New York


May 5, 2003

PETER J. MALLEY, PLAINTIFF, AGAINST NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; CITY OF NEW YORK; CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: VICTOR Marrero, United States District Judge.

ORDER

The Court having reviewed the Notice of Motion dated April 29, 2003 filed by plaintiff Peter J. Malley herein notes that it constitutes a reiteration of the motion the Court previously denied by its Order dated February 28, 2003. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion and directs the Clerk of Court to remove it from the Court's civil database of motions.

Plaintiff herein has already been sanctioned for continuing to file, without prior Court approval, new actions in this Court based on the same events described in his initial lawsuit herein, which the Court dismissed as unmeritorious in its original form as well as in numerous repeated versions. See Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 207 F. Supp.2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Plaintiff is given a final warning that any additional filing made to this Court evidencing non-compliance with the Court's previous orders shall subject him to appropriate penalties for disobeying court orders.

SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Peter J. Malley 31 Maple Pl. Clifton, N.J. 07011

Plaintiff NOTICE OF MOTION

against 02 CV 41999 (VM)

1. New York City Board of Education 65 Court St., Rm. 814 Brooklyn, N.y. 11201
2. City Of New York N.Y.C. Law Dept. 100 Church St., 4th Fl. New York, N.Y. 10007
3. Corporation Counsel of the City of New York N.Y.C. Law Dept. 100 Church St., 4th Fl. New York, N.Y. 10007
Defendants

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE upon motion herein, plaintiff will move this Court, Victor Marrero, U.S.D.J., in room 905, United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Sq., New York, N.Y. 10007 on May 16, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard for 2ND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTION.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________ Peter J. Malley, Pro Se
Apr. 29, 2003

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Peter J. Malley 31 Maple P1. Clifton, N.J. 07011

Plaintiff 2ND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTION

against 02 CV 4199 (VM)

1. New York City Board of Education 65 Court St., Rm. 814 Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
2. City of New York N.Y.C. Law Dept. 100 Church St., 4th Fl. New York, N.Y. 10007
3. Corporation Counsel of the City of New York N.Y.C. Law Dept. 100 Church St., 4th Fl. New York, N.Y. 10007
Defendants

Judge Victor Marrero, SDNY:

1. This Rule 60(b) motion for relief from sua sponte ORDER entered 6/27/02(1) dismissal of 6/4/02 complaint 02 CV 4199 (VM) and (2) Judge Marrero, SDNY's injunction extension for all federal courts of Judge Keenan, SDNY's 9/15/97 entered injunction for all federal courts.

2. Rule 60 (b): (1) mistake, inadvertence; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of adverse party; (5) it is no longer equitable that the judgement should have prospective application; (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgement. The motion shall be made in a reasonable time, and for reasons (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgement, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.

3. Only cause of action tenth herein claimed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case employment discrimination pre 3/18/87 termination unopposed untimely or res judicata barred in eight cases, including tenth herein claimed, and not found in ten cases, including tenth herein claimed, EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY untimely or its N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action res judicata barred by cause of action in any prior complaint, including both before Judge Griesa, under four 2nd Cir. res judicata criteria in Collard v. Village of Flower Hill, pursuant to Mattews v. Wolvin, allowing repetitive filings "same core allegations" until tried or found untimely or res judicata barred for (1) no final judgement on merits for untimely or res judicata barred in any prior case and (2) wrongful dismissals based on frauds by opposing counsel not required leave of judge of court to file in seven cases? including tenth herein claimed, unenjoined 9/15/97 for all federal court by 1st not matching, 2nd 12/21/85 instance of violation predating, and 3rd could not arose from later ". . . based on his dismissal by the Board of Education [3/18/87 Personal injury diversity case cause of action fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY) and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated [3/20/90 personal injury diversity case cause of action fraud and its Chancellor as defendant fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY]".

4. U.S. Supreme Ct. equitable tolling begins counting analogous state law statute of limitations (N.Y.S. 3yr.) not from instance of violation but from knowledge or reasonable basis of knowledge of civil rights violation.

5. Second Cir. held that claim should be precluded, pursuant to doctrine of res judicata if (1) claim could have been brought in prior action between parties; (2) claim arose out of same transaction [same core operative facts] as prior action; (3) prior action ended in final judgement on merits; and (4) relief requested could have been granted in previous action. See Collard v. Village of Flower Hill, 759 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827 (1985).

6. "Except where fraud or want of jurisdiction is charged, the recitals of a judgement import absolute verity and a court called upon to determine its character upon a plea of res judicata looks only to the face of the judgement and the pleadings on which it is rendered." Mattews v. Wolvin, C.A.Fla. 1959, 266 F.2d 772.

7. Judge Marrero, SDNY in ORDER entered 6/27/02 p.4 wrote ". . . he is alleging that the discrimination occurred on December 21, 1985, a year prior to his termination [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] . . . In any event, even if this action were outside the parameters of Court's injunction, this would be dismissed as time-barred under New York law [N.Y.S. 3yr. analogous law statute of limitations]." where Judge Marrero, SDNY'S Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake omitting EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY.

8. Judge Marrero, SDNY in ORDER entered 6/27/02 p.4 wrote ". . . [Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake] However, the complaint is just another of Malley's thinly veiled attempts to reargue claims pertaining to his dismissal by the Board of Education [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated [3/20/90 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60(b)(3) fraud and its Chancellor as defendant Rule 60 (b) (3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY]."

9. Judge Marrero, SDNY Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake dismissed tenth herein claimed (1) without final judgement on merits for 6/4/02 complaint EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY untimely or its N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action res judicata barred and (2) wrongfully dismissed based on 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top three Rule 60 (b)(3) frauds.

10. Judge Marrero, SDNY in ORDER entered 6/27/02 wrote "[Rule 60 (b) (1) mistake] Malley's disregard of this courts various Orders cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, his latest action is dismissed." not legal dismissal grounds such as untimely or res judicata barred and also where Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 not found tenth herein claimed 6/4/02 only cause of action enjoined 9/15/97 for all federal courts.

6/27/02 ENTERED INJUNCTION FOR ALL FEDERAL COURTS EXTENSION OF 9/15/97 ENTERED INJUNCTION FOR ALL FEDERAL COURTS
11. Judge Marrero, SDNY in 6/27/02 ORDER p.9 wrote "[Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake] ORDERED that this court's bar order issued on September 15, 1997 in connection with Malley v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., No. 94 Civ. 7186 [[`Plaintiff is hereby prohibited from filing any further complaints in any federal court based on his dismissal by the Board of Education [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated [3/20/90 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud and its Chancellor as defendant Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] without first obtaining leave of a judge of the court in which he seeks to file such complaint. It is further ordered that Plaintiff attach a copy of this Order to any pleading filed, or attempted to be filed, in any civil action in any federal court. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the summary dismissal of Plaintiff's lawsuit.']] is extended to prohibit Malley from filing any further complaints in any federal court pertaining to his employment with . . . the New York City Board of Education [Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake umbrella first authored by Judge Marrero, SDNY in 6/27/02 ORDER umbrella never claimed as cause of action by plaintiff (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake); and umbrella not specifying cause of action enjoined as preferred by 2nd Cir. (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) where this 6/27/02 umbrella (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) attempt to indirectly cover without directly enjoining (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) unopposed untimely or res judicata barred in eight case, including tenth herein claimed, (No opportunity to oppose in two prior cases.); not found in ten cases, including tenth herein claimed, EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY untimely (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) or its N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action res judicata barred (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake); 6/27/02 seventh time not found enjoined 9/15/97 for all federal courts (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake); 6/27/02 not found vexatious (Rule 60 (b) (1) mistake); and Judge Marrero, SDNY not signed fourth requested DEFAULT JUDGEMENT in favor of plaintiff 6/24/02 submitted to Clerk of Court, SDNY before 6/27/02 dismissal 6/4/02 complaint for fourth time no dismissal motion eliminating duty to jury trial for fourth time (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake)] or pertaining to his . . . subsequent termination by the New York City Board of Education [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY (Rule 60(b)(1) mistake)], as well as any other action [This combines as all complaints in all federal courts (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) indirectly enjoining eleventh not yet claimed EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action, pursuant to Mattews v. Wolvira, allowing repetitve filings "same core allegations" until tried or found untimely or res judicata barred for (1) no final judgement on merits for untimely or res judicata barred in ten prior cases, including tenth herein claimed and (2) wrongful dismissals based on frauds by by opposing counsel], unless such filing complies with the provisions of this Order . . . [p.7] . . . the Court shall extend Judge Keenan's bar order and hereby prohibit Malley from filing any further complaints in any federal court pertaining to his employment [Rule 60(b)(1) mistake umbrella first authored by Judge Marrero, SDNY in 6/27/02 ORDER umbrella not specifying cause of action enjoined as preferred by 2nd Cir. (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) where this 6/27/02 umbrella (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) attempt to indirectly cover without directly enjoining (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) unopposed untimely or res judicata barred in eight cases, including tenth herein claimed, (No opportunity to oppose in two prior cases.); not found in ten cases, including tenth herein claimed, EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY untimely (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) or its N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action res judicata barred (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake); 6/27/02 seventh time not found enjoined 9/15/97 for all federal courts (Rule 60 (b)(1)mistake); 6/27/02 not found vexatious (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake); and Judge Marrero, SDNY not signed fourth requested DEFAULT JUDGEMENT in favor of plaintiff 6/24/02 submitted to Clerk of Court, SDNY before 6/27/02 dismissal 6/4/02 complaint for fourth time no dismissal motion eliminating duty to jury trial for fourth time (Rule 60(b)(1) mistake)] or subsequent termination by the New York City Board of Education [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action (Rule 60(b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake)] with the New York City Board of Education [P.7 omits p.9 `as well as any other action'.] The Clerk of Court is directed to refuse any action filed by Malley in any federal court unless such filing is accompanied by an affirmation, attested under penalty of purgery, setting forth succinctly (1) the facts which gave rise to the action, (2) an attestation that the case does not relate to his employment with . . . the Board [Plaintiff has clear legal right to file eleventh not yet claimed EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action, pursuant to Mattews v. Wolvin, allowing repetitive filings "same core allegations" until tried or found untimely or res judicata barred for (1) no final judgement on merits for untimely or res judicata barred in ten prior cases, including tenth herein claimed, (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) and (2) wrongful dismissals based on frauds by opposing counsel (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) where judge of court may grant leave to file litigated or unlitigated cause of action grantable for frauds and/or not foreclosed by controlling law (timeliness and/or res judicata doctrine).] not relate to his termination by the Board [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake)] which has been enjoined from further litigating [Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 first authored "relate to his employment with the Board" without 6/27/02 litigating untimely or res judicata barred (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) and also 6/27/02 authored "relate to his termination by the by the Board" without 6/27/02 litigating untimely or res judicata barred (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake).], (3) a petition for leave to file an action for approval by the assigned Judge, and (4) a copy of this Order and of Judge Keenan's Order of September 15, 1997.

Point I

12. Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 entered injunction extension for all federal courts of Judge Keenan, SDNY's 9/15/97 entered injunction for all federal courts for 6/4/02 complaint only cause of action tenth herein claimed without giving plaintiff notice (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) or opportunity (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) to oppose order before entry violating (1) "district court did not provide litigant with opportunity to be heard on the matter" Brow v. Farrelly, C.A.3 (Virgin Islands) 1983, 994 F.2d 1027; (2) "litigant was not given opportunity to oppose entry of so broad an order placing restrictions on Court access" Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, C.A.1 (R.I.) 1993, 985 F.2d 32; (3) "Plaintiff enjoined from filing further complaints or pleadings without leave of court was entitled to notice and opportunity to oppose such order before it was instituted." Tripati v. Beauman, C.A.10 (Wyo.) 1989, 878 F.2d 351; (4) "order should not have been entered without giving notice and opportunity to be heard." Matter of Hartford Textile Corp., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1979, 613 F.2d 388; and (5) "Enjoining order against litigant . . . must give . . . litigant adequate notice to oppose order before entry" Cello-Whitney v. Hoover, W.D. Wash. 1991, 769 F. Supp. 1155 where Judge Marrero, SDNY has nondiscretional judicial duty to withdraw in its entirety 6/27/02 entered injunction.

Point II

13. Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 entered injunction extension for all federal courts of Judge Keenan, SDNY's 9/15/97 entered injunction for all federal courts without 6/27/02 final judgement on merits for 6/4/02 complaint only cause of action tenth herein claimed untimely or res judicata barred (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) violating "All Writs Act permits court to enjoin repetitive and vexatious litigation only after it has reached judgement on merits." Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1985, 775 F.2d 1030, certiorari denied 106 S.Ct. 2919, 476 U.S. 1183, 91 L.Ed.2d 547, rehearing denied 107 S.Ct. 12, 478 U.S. 1032, 91 L.Ed.2d 767 where (1) Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 not found tenth herein claimed EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY untimely but instead found Judge Marrero, SDNY's (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) 12/21/85 employment discrimination claimed 6/4/02 as beyond N.Y.S. 3yr. analogous law statute of limitations where (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) by deleting EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED and (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) by deleting first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY as grounds for sua sponte (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) dismissal (Rule 60(b)(1) mistake) as untimely (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake), (2))Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 not found its N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action res judicata barred after Judge Marrero, SDNY p.4 admitted "Malley alleges that permission from this Court before filing this action is not necessary because he is alleging that the discrimination occurred on December 21, 1985, a year before his termination." but instead in next sentence wrote `[Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake] However, the complaint is just another of Malley's thinly veiled attempts to reargue claims pertaining to his "dismissal by the Board of Education [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated [3/20/90 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud and Chancellor as defendant Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY]'", and (3) no final judgement on merits for any cause of action of plaintiff's in any other federal court where Judge Marrero, SDNY has nondiscretional judicial duty to withdraw in its entirety 6/27/02 entered injunction.

Point III

14. Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 entered injunction extension for all federal courts of Judge Keenan, SDNY's 9/15/97 entered injunction for all federal courts violating 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) "All Writs Act" "agreeable to usages and principles of law" in part for repetitive and vexatious litigation where (1) Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 not found tenth herein claimed EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY untimely but instead found Judge Marrero, SDNY's (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) 12/21/85 employment discrimination claimed 6/4/02 as beyond N.Y.S. 3yr. analogous law statute of limitations where (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) by deleting EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED and (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) by deleting first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before judge Keeann, SDNY as grounds for sua sponte (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake) dismissal (Rule 60(b)(1) mistake) as untimely (Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake), (2) Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 not found its N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action res judicata barred after Judge Marrero, SDNY p.4 admitted "Malley alleges that permission from this Court before filing this action is not necessary because he is alleging that the discrimination occurred on December 21, 1985, a year before his termination." but instead in next sentence wrote `[Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake] However, the complaint is just another of Malley's thinly veiled attempts to reargue claims pertaining to his "dismissal by the Board of Education [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated [3/20/90 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud and Chancellor as defendant Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memroandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY]'", and (3) no final judgement on merits for any cause of action of plaintiff's in any other federal court where Judge Marrero, SDNY has nondiscretional judicial duty to withdraw in its entirety 6/27/02 entered injunction.

Point IV

15. Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 entered injunction extension for all federal courts of Judge Keenan, SDNY's 9/15/97 entered injunction for all federal courts violating (1) ". . . injunction . . . should be narrowly drawn to fit specific vice encountered." Castro v. U.S., C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1985, 775 F.2d 399, (2) ". . . did not narrowly tailor order to meet circumstances of case." Brow v. Farrelly, C.A.3 (Virgin Islands) 1993, 994 F.2d 1027, and (3) "enjoining order against litigant. . . . must . . . be narrowly tailored to remedy only litigant's particular abuses." Cello-Whitney v. Hoover, W.D.Wash. 1991, 769 F. Supp. 1155 where Judge Marrero, SDNY p.4 admitted "Malley alleges that permission from this Court before filing this action is not necessary because he alleging that the discrimination occurred on December 21, 1985 a year prior to his termination." but in next sentence wrote `[Rule 60 (b)(1) mistake] However, <the complaint is just another of Malley's thinly veiled attempts to reargue claims pertaining to his "dismissal by the Board of Education [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated [3/20/90] personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60(b)(3) fraud and Chancellor as defendant Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY]'" already fully enjoined 9/15/97 for all federal courts needing no further extension where Judge Marrero, SDNY has nondiscretional judicial duty to withdraw in its entirety 6/27/02 entered injunction.

Point V

16. Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 entered injunction extension for all federal courts of Judge Keenan, SDNY's 9/15/97 entered injunction for all federal courts violated "Enjoining order . . . must . . . include substantive findings as to frivolous or vexatious nature of litigant's filings" Cello-Whitney v. Hoover, W.D.Wash. 1991, 769 F. Supp. 1155 where not found in ten cases, including tenth herein claimed, EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY untimely or its N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action res judicata barred as well as these ten times not found frivolous or vexatious cause of action filing where Judge Marrero, SDNY has nondiscretional duty to withdraw in its entirety 6/27/02 entered injunction.

Point VI

17. Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 entered injunction extension for all federal courts of Judge Keenan, SDNY's 9/15/97 entered injunction for all federal courts violated Rule 60 (b)(5) it is no longer equitable that the judgement should have prospective application and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a) "All Writs Act" "agreeable to usages and principles of law" where Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 enjoined plaintiff "from filing any further complaints in any federal court pertaining to his employment with . . . the New York City Board of Education" [Judge Marrero, SDNY's 6/27/02 umbrella not found 6/27/02 untimely or res judicata barred and not specifying cause of action enjoined as preferred by 2nd Cir. attempt to indirectly cover without directly enjoining EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action not found 6/27/02 untimely or res judicata barred in ten cases, including tenth herein claimed.] where plaintiff has clear legal right to reinstate for eleventh not yet claimed equitably tolled 12/21/85 employment discrimination, pursuant to Mattews v. Wolvin, allowing repetitive filings "same core allegations" until tried or found untimely or res judicata barred for (1) no final judgement on merits for untimely or res judicata barred in ten prior cases, including tenth herein claimed, and (2) wrongful dismissals based on frauds by opposing counsel where Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 p.4 admitted "Malley alleges that permission from this Court before filing is not necessary because he is alleging that the discrimination occurred on December 21, 1985, a year before his termination." but in next sentence wrote `However, the complaint is just another of Malley's thinly veiled attempts to reargue claims pertaining to his "dismissal by the Board of Education [3/18/87 personal liturgy diverity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before before Judge Keenan, SDNY] and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated [3/20/90 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud and Chancellor as defendant Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY]'" where Judge Marrero, SDNY has nondiscretional judicial duty to withdraw 6/27/02 umbrella "pertaining ton his employment with . . . the New York City Board of Education".

Point VII

18. Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 entered injunction extension for all federal courts of Judge Keenan, SDNY's 9/15/97 entered injunction for all federal courts violated Rule 60 (b)(5) it is no longer equitable that the judgement should have prospective application and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a) "All Writs Act" "agreeable to usages and principles of law" where Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 enjoined plaintiff "as well as any other action" [Combines as all complaints in all federal courts.] [Judge Marrero, SDNY's 6/27/02 backup second umbrella not specifying causes of actions enjoined as preferred by 2nd Cir. attempt to indirectly cover without directly enjoining EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action where Judge Marrero, SDNY not found 6/27/02 untimely or res judicata barred in ten cases, including tenth herein claimed, and where Judge Marrero, SDNY not found 6/27/02 any causes of actions or timeliness claims of plaintiff's frivolous, vexatious, or harassing filings.] where plaintiff has clear legal right to reinstate for eleventh not yet claimed equitably tolled 12/21/85 employment discrimination, pursuant to Mattews v. Wolvin, allowing repetitive filings "same core allegations" until tried or found untimely or res judicata barred for (1) no final judgement on merits for untimely or res judicata barred in ten prior cases, including tenth herein claimed, and (2) wrongful dismissals based on frauds by opposing counsel where Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 p.4 admitted "Malley alleges that permission from this Court before filing is not necessary because he alleges that the discrimination occurred on December 21, 1985, a year before his termination." but in next sentence wrote `However, the complaint is just another or Malley's thinly veiled attempts to reargue his claims pertaining to his "dismissal by the Board of Education [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated [3/20/90 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud and its Chancellor as defendant Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY]'" where Judge Marrero, SDNY has nondiscretional judicial duty to withdraw 6/27/02 backup second umbrella "as well as any other action".

Point VIII

19. Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 entered injunction extension for all federal courts of Judge Keenan, SDNY's 9/15/97 entered injunction for all federal courts violated Rule 60 (b)(5) it is no longer equitable that the judgement should have prospective application and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a) "All Writs Act" "agreeable to usages and principles of law" where Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 p.7 wrote "The Clerk of Court is directed to refuse any action filed by Malley in any federal court unless such filing is accompanied by an affirmation, attested under penalty of perjury, . . . (2) an attestation that the case does not relate to his prior employment with . . . the Board [Judge Marrero, SDNY's 6/27/02 umbrella not specifying cause of action enjoined as preferred by 2nd Cir. 6/27/02 not found untimely or res judicata barred to indirectly cover without directly enjoining EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action where Judge Marrero, SDNY not found 6/27/02 untimely or res judicata barred in ten cases, including tenth herein claimed.] or termination by the Board [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] which has been enjoined from further litigating [Neither litigated untimely or res judicata barred before 6/27/02 injunction extension.] where plaintiff has clear legal right to reinstate for eleventh not yet claimed equitably tolled 12/21/85 employment discrimination, pursuant to Mattews v. Wolvin, allowing repetitive filings "same core allegations" until tried or found untimely or res judicata barred for (1) no final judgement on merits in ten prior cases, including tenth herein claimed, and (2) wrongful dismissals based on frauds by opposing counsel where Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 p.4 admitted "Malley alleges that permission from this Court before filing is not necessary because he is alleging that the discrimination occurred on December 21, 1985, a year prior to his termination." but in next sentence wrote `However, the complaint is just another of Malley's thinly veiled attempts to reargue claims pertaining to his "dismissal by the Board of Education [3/18/87 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60(b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY] and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated [3/20/90 personal injury diversity case cause of action Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud and Chancellor as defendant Rule 60 (b)(3) fraud from 11/26/94 dismissal motion memorandum p.6 top for 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY]'" where Judge Marrero, SDNY has nondiscretional judicial duty to withdraw 6/27/02 p.7(2).

Point IX

20. Judge Marrero, SDNY's 6/27/02 ORDER violated Rule 60 (b)(5) it is no longer equitable that the judgement should have prospective application and 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) "All Writs Act" "agreeable to usages and principles of law" in p.7(2) "The Clerk of Court is directed to refuse any action filed by Malley in any federal court unless such filing is accompanied by an affirmation, attested under penalty of perjury . . . (2) an attestation that the case does not relate to his prior employment with or termination by the Board which has been enjoined from further litigating [Neither specified cause of action enjoined as preferred by 2nd Cir. or 6/27/02 litigated as untimely or res judicata barred.]," where 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) may enjoin filing cause of action .without leave of judge of; court but may not enjoin filing cause of action with leave of judge of court where Judge Marrero, SDNY has nondiscretional judicial duty to withdraw p.7(2).

Point X

21. Judge Marrero, SDNY's 6/27/02 ORDER violated Rule 60 (b)(5) it is no longer equitable that the judgement should have prospective application; Rule 60 (b)(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgement; and 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) "agreeable to usages and principles of law".

22. Only cause of action in 6/4/02 complaint tenth herein claimed (1) unopposed untimely or res judicata barred eight times, including tenth herein claimed (No opportunity to oppose in two prior cases.), (2) seven times unenjoined 9/15/97 for all federal courts by Judge Keenan, SDNY, including tenth herein claimed, and (3) four times DEFAULT JUDGEMENT in favor of plaintiff for no dismissal motion eliminating duty to jury trial not signed, including tenth herein claimed, Judge Marrero, SDNY 6/27/02 not found EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY untimely or its N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action res judicata barred whereupon 6/27/02 dismissal plaintiff gained clear legal right to refile eleventh not yet claimed same cause of action, pursuant to Mattews v. Wolvin, allowing repetitive filings "same core allegations" until tried or found untimely or res judicata for (1) no final judgement on merits for untimely or res judicata barred in ten prior cases and (2) wrongful dismissals based on frauds by opposing counsel.

23, Judge Marrero, SDNY in 6/27/02 ORDER p.7 wrote "The Clerk of Court is directed to fefuse any cause of action filed by Malley in any federal court unless such filing is accompanied by an affirmation, attested under penalty of perjury . . . (2) an attestation that the case does not relate to his prior employment with . . . the New York City Board of Education [Umbrella lacking specific cause of action enjoined as preferred by 2nd Cir. attempting to indirectly cover without directly enjoining EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action]" which has been enjoined from further litigating [Never litigated untimely or res judicata barred]" where also more important attempt to bar Clerk of Court from accepting leave of judge of court grantable for litigated or unlitigated cause of action on grounds of frauds and/or not foreclosed by controlling law (timeliness and/or res judicata) to file eleventh not yet claimed EARLY JUNE '94 EQUITABLY TOLLED 12/21/85 instance of violation first prior claimed in 10/4/94 complaint before Judge Keenan, SDNY N.Y.C. Bd. of Ed. charges against teachers and supervisors sex discrimination against males cause of action, pursuant to Mattews v. Wolvin, allowing repetitive filings "same core allegations" until tried or found untimely or res judicata barred for (1) no final judgement on merits for untimely or res judicata barred in ten cases, including tenth herein claimed, and (2) wrongful dismissals based on frauds by Opposing counsel.

24. Instant only cause of action in 6/4/02 complaint before Judge Marrero, SDNY never opposed or found untimely or res judicata barred upon which he enjoined plaintiff for all causes of actions in all federal courts.

REMEDIES SOUGHT

25. Plaintiff seeks two remedies:

(1) Plaintiff seeks withdrawl in entirety of 6/27/02 injunction extension.
(2) Plaintiff seeks Judge Marrero, SDNY sign fourth requested DEFAULT JUDGEMENT in favor of plaintiff 6/24/02 submitted to Clerk of Court, SDNY before 6/27/02 dismissal 6/4/02 complaint for fourth time no dismissal motion eliminating duty to jury trial for fourth time.
Copy: Respectfully submitted,

Edward Shin _______________________ Assistant Corporation Counsel Peter J. Malley, Pro Se N.Y.C. Law Dept. 31 Maple P1. 100 Church St., 4th Fl. Clifton, N.J. 07011 New York, N.Y. 10007 Apr. 29, 2003

Tel.: (973) 340-7148

20030505

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.