United States District Court, S.D. New York
January 12, 2005.
PETER J. MALLEY, Plaintiff,
NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; and CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN KEENAN, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 18, 1987, Plaintiff was terminated from his position
as a teacher at the Washington Irving High School in New York
City. Malley v. Fernandez, No. 91 Civ. 5635 (PKL), 1992 WL
204359 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 1992). To date, Plaintiff has
filed fifteen separate cases in this Court, and three in the
Eastern District of New York, which concern his termination. See
Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 207 F. Supp. 2d 256, 257
(S.D.N.Y. 2002). By order of this Court dated September 10, 1997,
Plaintiff was directed not to file "any further complaints in any
federal court based on his dismissal by the Board of Education
and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license
reinstated without first obtaining leave of a judge of the court
in which he seeks to file such complaint." Malley v. New York
City Bd. of Educ., No. 94 Civ. 7186 (JFK), 1997 WL 570571 at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 1997).
In 2002, Judge Marrero rejected Plaintiff's attempt to
circumvent my order by alleging a violation of his civil rights before his termination. Malley, 207 F. Supp. 2d at 258. In
addition to finding the claims time-barred, Judge Marrero found
the new complaint "just another of Malley's thinly veiled
attempts to reargue claims pertaining to his dismissal by the
Board of Education and/or the denial of his application to have
his teaching license reinstated." Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Judge Marrero then directed that the Clerk of the Court
refuse any action filed by Plaintiff unless he submitted an
affirmation under penalty of perjury attesting (among other
things) that the new case "does not relate to his prior
employment with or termination by the Board which he has been
enjoined from further litigating." Id. at 259.
In accordance with Judge Marrero's Order, Plaintiff pro se
now seeks my leave to file a new Complaint. This Complaint
contains an affirmation attesting, in part, "that the case does
not relate to his termination by the Board . . . or relate to his
prior employment by the Board." (Cmplt. ¶ 14). In actuality, the
Complaint relates to just that. This time around, Plaintiff
appears to make a fraud claim by alleging "conduct on the part of
his employer of decades of secrecy specifically intended to
mislead him as to the existence of a cause of action or which had
the implementation of making it `impossible for a reasonably
prudent person to learn that his discharge was discriminatory.'"
(Cmplt. ¶ 6). In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff demands,
inter alia, "[d]amages for lost salary, benefits, bonus, all
N.Y.C. teaching licenses and compensation due from March 18, 1987 to
date of judgment." (Cmplt. ¶ 26).
I will not attempt to improve on Judge Marrero's assessment,
which is just as apropos now as it was in 2002. Leave to file the
Complaint is denied. Plaintiff is reminded that the Court may
punish the making of a false affirmation under penalty of perjury
with the imposition of a fine and/or imprisonment of up to five
years. See 18 U.S.C. § 1621.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.