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.

In re Lee

United States District Court, W.D. New York

June 17, 2014

IN RE: THOMAS T. LEE, Petitioner.

DECISION AND ORDER

WILLIAM M. SKRETNY, Chief District Judge.

Petitioner, Thomas T. Lee, a pro se litigant who, along with the "Lee Family Wealth Trust, " has been barred from filing in this Court (1) any future (new) or additional actions of any type related to bonds[1] at issue in four prior actions[2] before the court, and (2) any future (new) or additional actions unrelated to the bonds at issue in the prior four actions "without first obtaining written permission from the Court." ( Lee v. Corbat, et al., 12-CV-1034A, Decision and Order, at 20-21 ("Sanctions Order").)

The Sanctions Order completely bars Petitioner and the Lee Family Wealth Trust from seeking permission to file or filing any future actions related to the bonds at issue in the four previous actions. For unrelated actions, the Sanctions Order requires that Petitioner file a separate written request for permission to file a new action that (1) acknowledges that Petitioner had been barred from filing any future actions without permission, and (2) requests permission to file a new action notwithstanding the prohibition against future filings.

On June 9, 2014, Petitioner filed a Request for Permission to File a New Action (Docket No. 1) against United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara, the District Judge assigned to Petitioner's four prior actions. ( Id. ) Petitioner also filed a notice of motion, a proposed complaint, an affirmation in support, and an exhibit entitled "Definition of Fraud Upon the Courts." ( Id. )

The form Request for Permission to File a New Action acknowledges that Petitioner is barred from filing any future actions in this Court without first obtaining permission. It further states that Petitioner is seeking permission to file a new action because Judge Arcara "committed the Fraud upon the Court for sending the fabricated and forged Notice of Electronic Filing on Order on Motion 1;13-mc-0999 dated June 5, 2014." ( Id. ) The proposed complaint alleges the same and seeks $1, 000, 000 "to compensate for the delay of funds to be recovered from Citibank."

Even assuming arguendo that the proposed complaint is not completely barred as being related to the bonds at issue in the prior actions, this Court finds that the complaint is wholly frivolous and brought only to annoy and harass the court. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (frivolous) ; Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judges are absolutely immune from suit for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities). Permission to file the proposed complaint is therefore denied.

Petitioner is cautioned that if he attempts to file any future actions of any type that are frivolous, abusive, malicious or intended to annoy or harass the court, he will be immediately barred from filing any future actions of any kind in this court, whether related to the previous four actions or not, and the Office of the Clerk will be instructed not to accept anything from him for filing. Accordingly,

IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Petitioner's Request for Permission to File a New Action (Docket No. 1) is DENIED with prejudice.

FURTHER, that Petitioner (and anyone on his behalf) must cease and desist from submitting letters, faxes, and stray documents to the court.[3] FURTHER, that the Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

SO ORDERED.


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.