United States District Court, N.D. New York
January 16, 2004.
Jaime A. Davidson, Petitioner, -v.- United States of America, Respondent
The opinion of the court was delivered by: NEAL McCURN, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM. DECISION AND ORDER
On October 17, 2003 this Court issued a memorandum, decision and
order, which, among other things, directed petitioner Jaime A. Davidson
to show cause why he should not be enjoined from filing any further
motions, petitions, notices, letters,
exhibits, affidavits, or any other documents with this Court regarding
his petition for habeas relief, originally filed in June 2000. Davidson
timely responded to this Court's order by submission of a memorandum of
law and supporting exhibits.
Familiarity with the background of this case is presumed. However, it
bears repeating that since June 2000, Davidson has inundated this Court
with numerous filings constituting thousands of pages of material
containing arguments largely repetitive of those initially set forth in
his initial petition for habeas relief.
As noted in this Court's October 17, 2003 decision, it is not only
within this Court's authority, but it is this Court's responsibility to
enjoin parties from further vexatious litigation in order to "protect its
ability to carry out its constitutional functions against the threat of
onerous, multiplicitous, and baseless litigation." See Safir v. United
States Lines. Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1986), (citing Abdullah
v. Gatto, 773 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir. 1985). (quoting In re
Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2d Cir. 1984))). Prior to taking
such action, litigants are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be
heard by the Court regarding same. See Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123
(2d Cir. 2000). Having complied with the aforesaid requirement, this
Court must now decide whether or not to enjoin Davidson from further
filings regarding his habeas petition. In making such a determination,
this Court must give consideration to five factors as outlined by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, to wit: (1) Davidson's history of
litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or
duplicative lawsuits, (2) whether Davidson has an objective good faith
expectation of prevailing on his claims, (3) whether Davidson is
represented by counsel, (4) whether Davidson has posed an unnecessary
burden on the courts and their personnel, and (5)
whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts. See
Safir, 792 F.2d at 24. It is clear, as evidenced by this Court's previous
decisions regarding this matter, that the only Safir factor weighing in
Davidson's favor is that he is not represented by counsel. However,
several courts have issued injunctions preventing the initiation of
further litigation notwithstanding the pro se status of the party to be
enjoined, especially when the other Safir factors weigh in favor of an
injunction. See, e.g., Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir.
1998); Norley v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 03 Civ. 2318, 2003 WL 22890402, at *8
(S.D.N.Y. 2003); O'Diah v. New York City, et al., No. 02 Civ. 274, 2002
WL 1941179, at *21 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Iwachiw v. New York City Bd. of
Elections, 217 F. Supp.2d 374, 382 (E.D.N.Y. 2002); Fitzgerald v. Field,
99 Civ. 3406, 1999 WL 1021568, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Having considered
and weighed the aforementioned factors, the Court hereby concludes that
an injunction is warranted.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that petitioner is enjoined from filing any further motions,
petitions, notices, letters, exhibits, affidavits, or any other documents
to this Court regarding habeas relief, without first obtaining leave of
this Court, and it is further
ORDERED, that petitioner may only obtain leave of this Court by
submission thereto of a written application, not to exceed two pages,
double-spaced, summarizing the factual or legal basis for the desired
action. Any submission in excess of the two-page limit will be rejected
by the Court and returned to petitioner without review or a
disposition as to its contents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.