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.

DAVIDSON v. U.S.

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, Page 2 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) Page 3 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 Page 4 disposition as to its contents.

  IT IS SO ORDERED. Page 1

20040116

© 1992-2004 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.