Richmond v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (P.B. 7, LLC)

Second Circuit

Richmond v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (P.B. 7, LLC)

691 F. App'x 652

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 17, 2016·No. 16-2178; 16-2179·Published

Opinion

Appellant, pro se, moves in both appeals for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are DENIED and the appeals are DISMISSED because they “lack[] an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

. Appellant has filed a number of frivolous matters in addition to these two appeals. See 2d Cir. 15-3389, 16-2763, 16-2764, 16-2768, 16-2801, 16-2802, 16-2803, 16-2856, 16-2859, and 16-2861. Accordingly, Appellant is hereby warned that the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or clearly meritless appeals, motions, or other papers, will result in the imposition of a “leave-to-file” sanction, which may require Appellant to obtain permission from this Court prior to filing any further submissions in this Court. See In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir. 1993); Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1989).

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

Appellant, pro se, moves in both appeals for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are DENIED and the appeals are DISMISSED because they “lack[] an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

. Appellant has filed a number of frivolous matters in addition to these two appeals. See 2d Cir. 15-3389, 16-2763, 16-2764, 16-2768, 16-2801, 16-2802, 16-2803, 16-2856, 16-2859, and 16-2861. Accordingly, Appellant is hereby warned that the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or clearly meritless appeals, motions, or other papers, will result in the imposition of a “leave-to-file” sanction, which may require Appellant to obtain permission from this Court prior to filing any further submissions in this Court. See In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir. 1993); Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1989).

Richmond v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (P.B. 7, LLC), 691 F. App'x 652 (2d Cir. 2016).

Pincite

691 F. App'x 652 (Richmond v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (P.B. 7, LLC)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related