Johnson v. Vera House, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
• Decided: March 18, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00314
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

------------------------------x : ROBERT W. JOHNSON : Civ. No. 3:22CV00314(SALM) : v. : : VERA HOUSE, INC. and MARCUS : Of VERA HOUSE, INC. : March 18, 2022 : ------------------------------x

ORDER ENJOINING PLAINTIFF FROM FILING FUTURE CIVIL ACTIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT

Self-represented plaintiff Robert W. Johnson (“plaintiff”), a resident of New York State, has filed 28 actions in the District of Connecticut since January 19, 2022. In each case, he has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. See Johnson v. Fenstermaker, et al., 3:22CV00101(SALM) (Jan. 19, 2022); Johnson v. Pathfinder Bank, et al., 3:22CV00109(SALM) (Jan. 20, 2022); Johnson v. Hilton, et al., 3:22CV00110(SALM) (Jan. 20, 2022); Johnson v. Utica National Insurance Group, et al., 3:22CV00124(SALM) (Jan. 21, 2022); Johnson v. Sugerman Law Firm, et al., 3:22CV00126(SALM) (Jan. 21, 2022); Johnson v. Kim, et al., 3:22CV00138(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Brown, et al., 3:22CV00139(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Catalano, 3:22CV00140(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Empower Federal Credit Union, et al. 3:22CV00141(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. EMPRO Insurance, et al., 3:22CV00142(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Comfort Inn Hotel, et al., 3:22CV00143(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Watertown Savings Bank, et al., 3:22CV00144(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Chumsky, 3:22CV00145(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Rusin, et al., 3:22CV00146(SALM) (Jan. 25, 2022); Johnson v. Carthage Area

Hospital Inc., 3:22CV00154(SALM) (Jan. 27, 2022); Johnson v. Loewenguth, et al., 3:22CV00167(SALM) (Jan. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Michaels & Smolak, P.C., 3:22CV00188(SALM) (Jan. 31, 2022); Johnson v. New York State, et al., 3:22CV00191(SALM) (Jan. 31, 2022); Johnson v. Kent, et al., 3:22CV00192(SALM) (Jan. 31, 2022); Johnson v. Connell, et al., 3:22CV00207(SALM) (Feb. 7, 2022); Johnson v. McMahon, et al., 3:22CV00230(SALM) (Feb. 9, 2022); Johnson v. Davidson Automotive Group, et al., 3:22CV00231(SALM) (Feb. 9, 2022); Johnson v. New York State Division of Human Rights, et al., 3:22CV00232(SALM) (Feb. 9, 2022); Johnson v. New York State, et al., 3:22CV00233(SALM) (Feb. 9, 2022); Johnson v. Powell, et al., 3:22CV00256(SALM)

(Feb. 14, 2022); Johnson v. New York State Insurance Company, 3:22CV00257(SALM) (Feb. 14, 2022); Johnson v. Moschouris, et al., 3:22CV00313(SALM) (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Vera House, Inc., et al., 3:22CV00314(SALM) (Feb. 28, 2022). The Court has now issued Initial Review Orders in fourteen of these cases. In each instance, the Court has found that dismissal was required because the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, or the Complaint failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. See Johnson v. Fenstermaker, et al., 3:22CV00101(SALM), at Doc. #12 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Hilton, et al., 3:22CV00110(SALM), at Doc. #11

(Feb 17, 2022); Johnson v. Utica National Insurance Group, et al., 3:22CV00124(SALM), at Doc. #11 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Chumsky, 3:22CV00145(SALM), at Doc. #11 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Rusin, et al., 3:22CV00146(SALM), at Doc. #11 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Connell, et al., 3:22CV00207(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. McMahon, et al., 3:22CV00230(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Davidson Automotive Group, et al., 3:22CV00231(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. New York State Division of Human Rights, et al., 3:22CV00232(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. New York State, et al., 3:22CV00233(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Powell, et al., 3:22CV00256(SALM), at Doc. #7

(Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. New York State Insurance Company, 3:22CV00257(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Moschouris, et al., 3:22CV00313(SALM), at Doc. #7 (March 18, 2022); Johnson v. Vera House, Inc., et al., 3:22CV00314(SALM), at Doc. #7 (March 18, 2022). The Court has also dismissed another ten of plaintiff’s cases due to plaintiff’s failure to file a sufficient motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or to pay the filing fee, after notice from the Court that his initial motion to proceed without payment of fees and costs was insufficient. See Johnson v. Pathfinder Bank, et al., 3:22CV00109(SALM), at Doc. #10 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Sugerman Law Firm, et al.,

3:22CV00126(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022)); Johnson v. Kim, et al., 3:22CV00138(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Brown, et al., 3:22CV00139(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Catalano, 3:22CV00140(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Empower Federal Credit Union, et al. 3:22CV00141(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. EMPRO Insurance, et al., 3:22CV00142(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Comfort Inn Hotel, et al., 3:22CV00143(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Watertown Savings Bank, et al., 3:22CV00144(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Loewenguth, et al., 3:22CV00167(SALM), at Doc. #9 (Feb. 28, 2022).1

1 In another four of plaintiff’s cases, the Court denied, without prejudice to re-filing, plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as insufficient. See Johnson v. Carthage Area Hospital Inc., 22CV00154(SALM), at Doc. #7 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Michaels & Smolak, P.C., 22CV00188(SALM), at Doc. #6 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. New York State, et al., 22CV00191(SALM), at Doc. #6 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Kent, et al., 22CV00192(SALM), at Doc. #6 (Feb. 17, 2022). Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal in three of these cases. On February 17, 2022, the Court issued a Notice to plaintiff in a number of his dismissed cases, cautioning him that he could be subject to an injunction prohibiting him from filing additional cases in this District without approval of the Court, based on his history of filing meritless cases. The Court

warned: The Court cautions plaintiff that the repeated filing of cases that lack any arguable legal merit, or fail to state a legitimate claim for relief under federal law, will result in the imposition of sanctions. Specifically, the Court will enter an injunction prohibiting the filing of further cases without advance approval of the Court.

Johnson v. Fenstermaker, et al., 3:22CV00101(SALM), at Doc. #13 (Feb. 17, 2022); see also Johnson v. Hilton, et al., 3:22CV00110(SALM), at Doc. #12 (Feb 17, 2022); Johnson v. Utica National Insurance Group, et al., 3:22CV00124(SALM), at Doc. #12 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Chumsky, 3:22CV00145(SALM), at Doc. #12 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Rusin, et al., 3:22CV00146(SALM), at Doc. #12 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. McMahon, et al., 3:22CV00230(SALM), at Doc. #8 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Davidson Automotive Group, et al., 3:22CV00231(SALM), at Doc. #8 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. New York State Division of Human Rights, et al., 3:22CV00232(SALM), at Doc. #8 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. New York State, et al., 3:22CV00233(SALM), at Doc. #8 (Feb. 17, 2022); Johnson v. Powell, et al., 3:22CV00256(SALM), at Doc. #8 (Feb. 17, 2022). As the Court observed in the Notice, plaintiff is a resident of New York. His claims to date have primarily been brought against other parties in New York, relating to events that appear to have occurred in New York. There does not appear to be any arguable connection to the District of Connecticut.

Plaintiff may be filing in alternative districts -- including, but not by any means limited to, the District of Connecticut -- because he has been barred from filing in the Southern District of New York. See Johnson v. Town of Onondaga, No. 1:19CV11128(CM), at Doc. #7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2021). In addition to the Notice issued by this Court in February, plaintiff has been previously warned by a number of courts against filing frivolous matters. See, e.g., Johnson v. Wolfe, No. 19-3891, 2020 WL 2544909, at *1 (2d Cir. May 7, 2020) (cautioning plaintiff that the continued filing of frivolous appeals could result in a filing injunction); Johnson v. Coe, Nos. 2:19CV02428(EAS), 2:19CV02490(EAS), 2:19CV02865(EAS), 2019

WL 3543542, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 5, 2019) (order declaring plaintiff a “vexatious litigator” and imposing a filing injunction). After the Court issued its Notice, plaintiff filed a number of appeals, as well as two additional civil matters in this Court. See Johnson v. Moschouris, et al., 3:22CV00313(SALM) (Feb. 28, 2022); Johnson v. Vera House, Inc., et al., 3:22CV00314(SALM) (Feb. 28, 2022) Each of those two new matters, like the 26 that came before them, fails to state a claim, and does not satisfy Rule 8. One matter also lacks any arguable basis for subject matter jurisdiction. “Federal courts have both the inherent power and the

constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.” In re Martin Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir. 1984). “The filing of repetitive and frivolous suits constitutes the type of abuse for which an injunction forbidding further litigation may be an appropriate sanction.” Shafii v. British Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1996). [A] district court, in determining whether or not to restrict a litigant’s future access to the courts, should consider the following factors: (1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties. Ultimately, the question the court must answer is whether a litigant who has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties. Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986).

Despite ample notice that the filing of frivolous actions will not be permitted, plaintiff has not been deterred. The Court therefore considers, in light of the Safir factors, whether an injunction barring plaintiff from filing further actions without leave of the Court is appropriate. The first factor weighs strongly in favor of an injunction. Johnson has filed 28 cases in this District. Each of these

cases, except the handful of cases that were appealed before the entry of a dismissal order, was dismissed either as a result of defects in the application to proceed in forma pauperis, or at the Initial Review stage, as lacking merit. A review of the national PACER Case Locator reveals that plaintiff has also filed at least 100 cases across the country in the past several years, including 15 cases in the District of Vermont in the month of February 2022, and at least eight in the District of New Jersey this year. As previously noted, other courts have been forced to limit plaintiff’s access because of his abuse of the system. The second factor likewise weighs strongly in favor of a

filing injunction. Plaintiff cannot have an “objective good faith expectation of prevailing[.]” Safir, 792 F.2d at 24. In the Initial Review Orders in plaintiff’s prior cases, the Court articulated the defects in plaintiff’s complaints and the requirements for pleading in federal court. For example, the Court has previously instructed plaintiff that a complaint must contain sufficient information to put a defendant on notice of the claims against him. The Court has informed plaintiff that a complaint must allege concrete harm, and that this Court will dismiss frivolous suits. The Court has also informed plaintiff that any complaint must comply with the requirements of Rule 8. Despite these prior orders, plaintiff continues to file facially

defective pleadings. Accordingly, the Court concludes that plaintiff does not have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing on his claims. The third factor, whether plaintiff is represented by counsel, weighs against an injunction, because plaintiff is self-represented. The fourth factor, “whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel[,]” Safir, 792 F.2d at 24, weighs strongly in favor of an injunction. While this Court has addressed all of plaintiff’s claims at the initial review stage, such that no defendant has been required to appear and

answer his complaints, the same has not always been true in other courts. See, e.g., Johnson v. Adams No. 19-4061 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2019); Johnson v. Performant Recovery, Inc., et al., No. 4:19CV05789(SBA) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2019); Johnson v. Performant Recovery, Inc., et al., No. 20-15022 (9th Cir. Jan 7, 2020). Thus, plaintiff has caused “needless expense” to other parties. Safir, 792 F.2d at 24. Moreover, even here in the District of Connecticut, where defendants have not been required to respond because the complaints were dismissed at the Initial Review stage or for failure to pay the required filing fee, plaintiff has undoubtedly “posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their

personnel[.]” Id. Finally, the fifth factor weighs in favor of an injunction because “other sanctions would be [in]adequate to protect the courts and other parties.” Safir, 792 F.2d at 24. Plaintiff claims to be indigent; although he spends a great deal of money on postage for his court filings, he claims to have no source of financial support and no expenses. Thus, financial sanctions would be meaningless and unenforceable. Plaintiff has been undeterred by the prior orders of this and other courts. No amount of explanation has affected plaintiff’s determination to continue asserting meritless claims. See Johnson v. Adams, No. 19-4061, 2020 WL 2968458, at *1 (2d Cir. May 7, 2020)

(“Appellant has filed several frivolous matters in this Court[.] Appellant has previously been warned against filing new frivolous appeals. Accordingly, Appellant is warned that the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or clearly meritless appeals, motions, or other papers could result in the imposition of both a monetary sanction and a sanction that would require Appellant to obtain permission from this Court prior to filing any further submissions in this Court[.]” (citations omitted)); Johnson v. New York State Ins. Fund, No. 19CV11831(CM), 2020 WL 764036, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2020) (noting plaintiff’s “pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation[,]” and the prior orders entered in the Southern District of New York which

“directed Plaintiff to show cause why a filing injunction should not be imposed[]”); Johnson v. May, No. 1:19CV01390(JBM)(TSH), at Doc. #4 at 7 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2019) (“Plaintiff is cautioned that there must be a basis in law and fact for each of his claims as well as a basis to allege those claims against the named defendants. If there is no basis for a claim or a basis to allege a claim against any particular defendant, Plaintiff may be sanctioned.”). The Court therefore finds that no sanctions short of a filing injunction would be effective. Cf. United States v. McLaughlin, No. 3:17CR00129(MPS), 2019 WL 5538112, at *3 (D. Conn. Oct. 25, 2019); Miller v. Stallworth, No. 3:19CV00484(CSH), 2019 WL 3080913, at *2 (D. Conn. Jul. 15,

2019); Tibbetts v. Stempel, No. 3:97CV02561(CFD), 2005 WL 2146079, at *8 (D. Conn. Aug. 31, 2005), aff’d sub nom., Tibbetts v. Dittes, 167 F. App’x 851 (2d Cir. 2006); In re Martin-Trigona, 592 F. Supp. 1566, 1569-70 (D. Conn. 1984), aff’d, 763 F.2d 140 (2d Cir. 1985). THEREFORE, the Court hereby imposes the following PERMANENT INJUNCTION as against plaintiff Robert W. Johnson: Robert W. Johnson is hereby permanently enjoined from bringing any future case as a self-represented plaintiff in the District of Connecticut without leave of the Court. To seek leave of the Court to file a new action in this District, Mr. Johnson shall file a motion of no more than three

pages captioned “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File.” He shall attach to this motion as “Exhibit 1” the proposed Complaint he seeks to file. He shall attach as “Exhibit 2” to the motion a copy of this Order. The Clerk of the Court shall not file any future submission from Mr. Johnson of any kind, with the sole exception of a Notice of Appeal from this Order, without the approval of the assigned judge. If Mr. Johnson files any submission, the Clerk shall provide the submission to the assigned judge to determine whether it complies with this Order. If Mr. Johnson files any action in any District Court within the Second Circuit in the future, he must attach a copy

of this Order to his Complaint. The District Courts of the Second Circuit are the District of Connecticut; the District of Vermont; and the Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Western Districts of New York. Failure to comply with this Order will be sufficient grounds for this Court to deny any motion by Mr. Johnson for leave to file. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as having any effect on Mr. Johnson’s ability to defend himself in any criminal or civil action brought against him. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as denying Mr. Johnson access to the courts through the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus or other extraordinary writ. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as denying Mr. Johnson access to the United States Courts of Appeals. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as affecting any pending action previously brought by Mr. Johnson in any forum. The Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this Order to Mr. Johnson at his address of record: Robert W. Johnson, 112 Court Street, Apt. 2, Watertown, New York, 13601. It is so ordered this 18th day of March, 2022, at New Haven, Connecticut. _____/s/____________________ HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE