Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Keyes v. Quinn

United States District Court, E.D. New York

December 22, 2017

KEYSEAN L. KEYES, Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER QUINN, Defendant. KEYSEAN L. KEYES, Plaintiff,
v.
CHIEF JUDGE JUDITH S. KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM REHNQUIST, THE ALFONSE M. D'AMATO UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE, Defendants. KEYSEAN L. KEYES, Plaintiff,
v.
LONG ISLAND COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., Defendants. KEYSEAN L. KEYES, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN IMHOF, Defendant. KEYSEAN L. KEYES, Plaintiff,
v.
THE MARY BRENNAN INN and EMPLOYEE NANCY, Defendants. KEYSEAN L. KEYES, Plaintiff,
v.
ATTORNEY JEFFREY GRODER, ATTORNEY JAMES P. CLARKE, JUDGE S.M. GIANELLI, Defendants. KEYSEAN L. KEYES, Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE KRAMER, Supervising Clerk, CLERK, Unknown Badge #, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

          Joan M. Azrack, United States District Judge.

         On November 3, 2017, pro se plaintiff Keysean L. Keyes, a frequent filer in this Court, filed seven (7) new in forma pauperis complaints. The Court grants plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 solely for the purpose of this Order. These complaints are consolidated under docket number 17-CV-6429(JMA) and, for the reasons that follow, the complaints are dismissed. Given plaintiff's history of filing repetitive and frivolous in forma pauperis complaints, plaintiff is also ordered to show cause why an order barring her from filing any new in forma pauperis complaint without first obtaining leave of Court should not be entered.

         BACKGROUND

         By Order dated November 9, 2017 (the “Order”), the Court granted plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis in twenty-three (23) of her cases (the “New Complaints”)[1] and that were all consolidated under docket number 17-3757(JMA)(SIL) (the “Consolidated Action”) and dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint, bearing only docket number 17-CV-3757(JMA)(SIL), within thirty (30) days from the date of the Order. Plaintiff was warned that if she failed to file an amended complaint within the time allowed or to show good cause why she could not comply, judgment dismissing the action would be entered. (See 17-CV-3575 at Docket Entry No. 13 at 36, 39-40.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and judgment dismissing the action entered on December 19, 2017. (Id. at Docket Entry No. 16.)

         Because plaintiff has a long history of frivolous litigation in this Court[2], she was also ordered to file an affidavit within thirty (30) days from the date of the Order showing cause why an order should not be entered barring her from filing any new complaint relating to her underlying criminal case and any of the subjects raised in the New Complaints. Again, plaintiff was warned that her failure to file an affidavit in accordance with the Order would lead to the entry of an order barring plaintiff from filing any new complaint relating to her underlying criminal case and any of the subjects raised in the New Complaints and that the Court would direct the Clerk of the Court to return to plaintiff, without filing, any such action. (Id. Docket Entry No. 13 at 38, 40). Plaintiff did not file an affidavit in response to the Order, and, for the reasons set forth in the Order, plaintiff was enjoined from filing any new action in this Court relating to relating to her underlying criminal case and any of the subjects raised in the New Complaints without first seeking leave of Court. The Clerk of the Court was directed to return to plaintiff, without filing, any new action relating to her underlying criminal case and any of the subjects raised in the New Complaints if it is received without a separate application seeking leave to file.

         Plaintiff was also warned that the continued submission of frivolous civil actions may result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including monetary penalties, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Malley v. Corp. Counsel of the City of N.Y., 9 F. App'x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary order) (affirming imposition of $1, 500 sanction on pro se litigant for filing repetitive, frivolous complaints).

         I. The Present Complaints

         As was noted above and in the Order, plaintiff filed seven (7) more in forma pauperis complaints on November 3, 2017 and that were not addressed in the Order. Each of the present complaints is incomprehensible, incoherent, frivolous, and largely repetitive of prior complaints. For example, in the complaint assigned docket number 17-CV-6429, plaintiff again seeks to sue Judge Christopher Quinn, the state court justice who presided over an underlying state court criminal matter. The complaint assigned docket number 17-6434, again seeks to impose liability against Jeffrey Groder and James Clarke, both of who are attorneys involved with plaintiff's underlying criminal case. Similarly, the complaint assigned docket number 17-6432 is against John Imhof (“Imhof”), the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, and purports to allege the same incoherent and fantastic claims as were alleged in the consolidated action. On December 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint under docket number 17-6432 that continues to name Imhof but also adds nine more defendants and is difficult to comprehend. (See 17-CV-6432 at Docket Entry No. 5.) As the Court can best discern, plaintiff complains generally that, while at a shelter, she was called a “psyco” [sic] and was not given a blanket because she is Black. (Id. at 11, 15-16.) In addition, the complaint assigned docket number 17-6430 is against the Alfonse M. D'Amato Courthouse and two deceased jurists, Justice Judith A. Kaye, Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Like her other complaints, plaintiff alleges that she, as a “black woman”, is a victim because the defendants “hate [] black people.” (See, e.g., 17-CV-6430 at ¶ IV.)

         DISCUSSION

         I. Sufficiency of the Pleadings

         Where, as here, the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the district court must dismiss the complaint if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). An action is deemed frivolous as a matter of law when, inter alia, it “lacks an arguable basis in law, or a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint.” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted.) In Denton, the Supreme Court noted that:

the in forma pauperis statute, unlike Rule 12(b)(6) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”

Denton, 504 U.S. at 32 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).

         “It is axiomatic that district courts are required to read pro se complaints liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010), and to construe them “‘to raise the strongest arguments that [they] suggest [ ], '” Chavis, 618 F.3d at 170 (quoting Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18, 24 (2d Cir. 2010)). Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations” in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2010), aff'd, 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). However, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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