Richard Becker v. Adams Drug Co., Inc., Nescott Drugs, Whelan Drugs and Brooks Drugs, Defendants

Second Circuit

Richard Becker v. Adams Drug Co., Inc., Nescott Drugs, Whelan Drugs and Brooks Drugs, Defendants

819 F.2d 32, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 6301, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 37,202

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 1987

Docket1067, Docket 87-7070

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 819 F.2d 32 (Richard Becker v. Adams Drug Co., Inc., Nescott Drugs, Whelan Drugs and Brooks Drugs, Defendants) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Becker v. Adams Drug Co., Inc., Nescott Drugs, Whelan Drugs and Brooks Drugs, Defendants, 819 F.2d 32, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 6301, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 37,202 (2d Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Richard Becker appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Louis L. Stanton, J., dismissing his claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., apparently for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Despite nearly three years of discovery in the case and repeated directions from the district court to file “a short and plain statement of the facts supporting [his] allegation,” Becker failed to supply a comprehensible complaint,, or indeed, “any facts supporting his allegation of age discrimination.” The district court was wholly justified in dismissing the complaint. See Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 935, 93 S.Ct. 1911, 36 L.Ed.2d 396 (1973).

Becker has filed numerous frivolous appeals with this court in the past, some of which, like this one, arose out of unsubstantiated claims of age discrimination. See, e.g., Becker v. Taco Bell, Inc., No. 85-7739 (2d Cir. Feb. 7, 1986). Since the beginning of 1986, appellant has been unsuccessful in at least ten appeals to this court. Appellant’s prior frivolous filings have led this court to warn him that sanctions would be imposed, see, e.g., Becker v. Cassidy, No. 85-7709 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 1986), to impose sanctions, see Becker v. Burger King Corp., No. 86-7779 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 1987); Becker v. New York, No. 86-7914 (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 1987), and to prevent appellant from filing papers in a particular case until he paid the sanctions imposed, see Becker v. New York, No. 86-7914 (2d Cir. Mar. 30, 1987).

Accordingly, appellant is ordered to pay appellees double costs and the amount of $500 as “just damages” on this appeal. Fed.R.App.P. 38. Furthermore, the clerk of this court is directed to accept no further papers from appellant, who does not have in forma pauperis status in this court, on any matter until appellant provides the court with adequate proof of compliance with the sanctions imposed in this case and in the prior cases cited above. See Johl v. Johl, 788 F.2d 75, 76 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 201, 93 L.Ed.2d 132 (1986); Schiff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 766 F.2d 61 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam).

Judgment affirmed. 1

1

. Appellant’s motion for stay and remand is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Richard Becker appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Louis L. Stanton, J., dismissing his claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., apparently for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Despite nearly three years of discovery in the case and repeated directions from the district court to file “a short and plain statement of the facts supporting [his] allegation,” Becker failed to supply a comprehensible complaint,, or indeed, “any facts supporting his allegation of age discrimination.” The district court was wholly justified in dismissing the complaint. See Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 935, 93 S.Ct. 1911, 36 L.Ed.2d 396 (1973).

Becker has filed numerous frivolous appeals with this court in the past, some of which, like this one, arose out of unsubstantiated claims of age discrimination. See, e.g., Becker v. Taco Bell, Inc., No. 85-7739 (2d Cir. Feb. 7, 1986). Since the beginning of 1986, appellant has been unsuccessful in at least ten appeals to this court. Appellant’s prior frivolous filings have led this court to warn him that sanctions would be imposed, see, e.g., Becker v. Cassidy, No. 85-7709 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 1986), to impose sanctions, see Becker v. Burger King Corp., No. 86-7779 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 1987); Becker v. New York, No. 86-7914 (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 1987), and to prevent appellant from filing papers in a particular case until he paid the sanctions imposed, see Becker v. New York, No. 86-7914 (2d Cir. Mar. 30, 1987).

Accordingly, appellant is ordered to pay appellees double costs and the amount of $500 as “just damages” on this appeal. Fed.R.App.P. 38. Furthermore, the clerk of this court is directed to accept no further papers from appellant, who does not have in forma pauperis status in this court, on any matter until appellant provides the court with adequate proof of compliance with the sanctions imposed in this case and in the prior cases cited above. See Johl v. Johl, 788 F.2d 75, 76 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 201, 93 L.Ed.2d 132 (1986); Schiff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 766 F.2d 61 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam).

Judgment affirmed. 1

1

. Appellant’s motion for stay and remand is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

819 F.2d 32, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 6301, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 37,202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-becker-v-adams-drug-co-inc-nescott-drugs-whelan-drugs-and-ca2-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack