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.

Wang v. State

United States District Court, E.D. New York

June 21, 2018

MICHAEL WANG, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW YORK; STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; OFFICE OF NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL; SUSAN M. CONNOLLY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK STATE; LORI L. PACK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK STATE; TONI E. LOGUE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK STATE; EDUCATION COMMISSION FOR FOREIGN MEDICAL GRADUATES; UNITED STATES MEDICAL LICENSE EXAMINATION SECRETARIAT; and MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKI[US, Defendants.

          For Plaintiff: Michael Wang, pro se 5 Patriot Court Stony Brook,

          For Defendants: No appearances.

          FILING INJUNCTION ORDER

          JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.

         By Memorandum and Order dated June 11, 2018 (the "Order"), the Court granted the application of pro se plaintiff Michael Wang ("Plaintiff") to proceed ±r\ forma pauperis, dismissed the Complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii), and denied Plaintiff's Motion for a Settlement Conference. (See Order, Docket Entry 7.) Because Plaintiff has filed seven (7) in forma pauperis Complaints relating to the same facts - -his discharge from his medical residency training at Stony Brook University Hospital ("University") 2004 - - and against many of the same Defendants[1], and each having been dismissed, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, within thirty (30) days, why he should not be enjoined from filing any new action relating to this subject matter without first obtaining leave of Court. (Order at 10-11.)[2]

         On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed a four page, unsworn submission entitled "Affidavit to Show Cause & Motion." (See Aff., Docket Entry 9.) Although provided an opportunity to be heard, nothing in Plaintiff's response, even when liberally construed, addresses why he should not be barred from filing any new action relating to his 2004 dismissal from the University residency training program without first obtaining permission to file, and, instead appears to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his Complaint.

         I. Reconsideration

         Insofar as Plaintiff argues the merits of his claims in his Affidavit, the Court liberally construes the submission to seek reconsideration the Order. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the Order is DENIED. Plaintiff points to no matters or controlling decisions that the Court allegedly overlooked nor does he provide any other proper basis for this Court to grant reconsideration. "The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the Court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Indeed, the Second Circuit instructs that Rule 60(b) is "extraordinary judicial relief" and can be granted "only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986) (citations omitted); accord United States v. Bank of N.Y., 14 F.3d 756, 759 (2d Cir. 1994). In addition, Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides that a party moving for reconsideration must "set[] forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which [the party] believes the court has overlooked." See Local Civ. R. 6.3. Accordingly, because Plaintiff's submission falls far short of establishing a proper basis for relief from the Order, to the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order, such request is DENIED. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 60(b) and Local Civ. R. 6.3.

         II. Litigation Bar

         For the reasons set forth above and in the Order, it is now ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff is ENJOINED from filing any new action in this Court relating to his 2004 dismissal from the University residency training program without first seeking leave of Court; (2) the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff, without filing, any new action relating his 2004 dismissal from the University residency training program if it is received without a separate application seeking leave to file; (3) if Plaintiff seeks leave to file a new complaint and the Court finds that the new action is not subject to this filing injunction, the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to file the new action and it shall be assigned a civil docket number; and (4) if leave to file is denied, Plaintiff's submission shall be filed on the Court's miscellaneous docket and a summary order denying leave to file shall be entered and no further action shall be taken.

         Plaintiff is 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 Fed.Appx. 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary order) (affirming imposition of $1, 500 sanction on pro se litigant for filing repetitive, frivolous complaints).

         Although nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit Plaintiff from filing an appeal of this Filing Injunction Order, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, should Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962).

         CONCLUSION

         To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order, reconsideration is DENIED. The Court now enters a Filing Injunction ENJOINING Plaintiff from filing any new action in this Court against Defendant relating to his 2004 dismissal from the University residency training program without first seeking leave of Court. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff, without filing, any new action relating to his 2004 dismissal from the University residency training program if it is received without a separate application seeking leave to file. If Plaintiff seeks leave to file a new complaint and the Court finds that the new action is not subject to this filing injunction, the Court shall grant Plaintiff leave to file the new action and it shall be assigned a civil docket number. If leave to file is denied, Plaintiff's submission shall be filed on the Court's miscellaneous docket and a summary order denying leave to file shall be entered and no further action shall be taken.

         Plaintiff is WARNED that the continued submission of frivolous and repetitive civil actions may result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including monetary penalties, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, should Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such status is DENIED ...


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.