UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN ROE; JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, 21-CV-1397(LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TO SHOW DATA ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC., et al., CAUSEUNDER 28 U.S.C. §1651 Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Rudy Rosenberg, proceeding under the pseudonym “John Roe,” brings this pro se action on behalf of himself and two other plaintiffs whom he identifies as “Jane Roe” and “Jane Roe 1.” For the following reasons, the Court directs Rosenberg to submit a declaration within thirty days setting forth good cause why the Court should not impose a leave-to-file sanctionon him.The Court also denies Rosenberg’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP), and dismisses this case. BACKGROUND Since May 2020, the court has received at least four actions in which the plaintiffs seek to proceed under the pseudonyms John Roe and Jane Does (the “anonymous cases”),none of which was accompanied by amotionfor permission to proceed anonymously.1 See Roe v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV-10260, 3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2021); Roe v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV- 10188, 3 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 3, 2020); Roe v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV-9635,3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2021);Roe v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV-4059, 2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2020).The actions were assignedtoJudge Louis Stanton, and in each case he determined that the
1The complaints do not contain the plaintiffs’ real names, addresses, or signatures, and are submitted without payment of the filing fees or anIFPapplication for each plaintiff. complaint did not comply with Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “[t]he title of [a] complaint must name all the parties.” Judge Stanton therefore directed the plaintiffs in each case to (1) submit an amended complaint with their real names, signatures, and addresses; (2) pay the $400.00 in fees required to file a civil action or each submit a completed IFP application; and (3) submit a motion to proceed anonymouslystatingthe
reasons why the Court should permit the plaintiffs to do so. The plaintiffs have failed to comply with the orders, and three of the cases have been dismissed for noncompliance. See ECF 1:20- CV-10260,7; ECF 1:20-CV-9635,5; ECF 1:20-CV-4059, 4. On January 25, 2021, in an order issued in Roe v. City of New York, No. 20-CV-10260, Judge Stantonstatedhisbelief that all of the anonymous cases had been filed by Rosenberg, noting that state-court trial transcripts and other documents attached to the complaint identified Rosenberg as John Roe. ECF 1:20-CV-10260, 4, at 6. Judge Stantonconcluded that Rosenberg’s litigation history and the plaintiffs’ consistent failure to respond to the Court’s orders in the anonymous cases “strongly suggest that these filings were made maliciously and with the intent
to harass.” (Id.) Judge Stanton also warned Rosenberg that “the Court will not continue to entertain these filings” and may impose sanctions, including directing the Clerk of Court to return incomplete filings.(Idat 7.) Rosenberg responded to Judge Stanton’s order by filing multiple frivolous letters and miscellaneous motions in the anonymous cases, in which he alleged judicial misconduct and challenged Judge Stanton’s and then-Chief Judge Colleen McMahon’s authority to make rulings in his cases.See ECF 1:20-CV-10260,5-6; ECF 1:20-CV-10188, 6; ECF 1:20-CV-9635,7-9; ECF 1:20-CV-4059,7-9.In thesesubmissions,Rosenbergidentified himself as John Roe and identifiedJacqueline Rosenberg and Eltha Joseph as the two Jane Doe plaintiffs.2 Similar to the other anonymous cases, Rosenberg submits thispurported employment discriminationaction under the pseudonym John Roe and seeks to bring claims on behalf of himself and two Jane Roes. Rosenberg also submits a motion for leave to proceed IFP, in which
he identifies himself as the “affiant.”(ECF 1-1, at 1.) But noIFP applications have been submittedfor the Jane Roes nor is there a motion for leave to proceed under the pseudonyms. DISCUSSION A. Claims on behalf of Jane Roes Rosenberg bring claims on behalf of two Jane Roe plaintiffs. The Court presumes, as in the other anonymous cases, that the Roe plaintiffs are actually Jacqueline Rosenberg and Eltha Jordan.But there is no indication in the complaint or elsewhere that either Jacqueline Rosenberg or Eltha Jordan intended to bring this action. And as a nonattorney, Rosenbergmay not appear pro se on behalf ofany other party. Under 28 U.S.C. §1654, parties in federal court “ may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” The statute “recognizes that an individual generally has the right to proceed pro se with respect to his own claims or claims against him
personally” or to be represented by a licensed attorney. Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir. 2009). The right to proceed pro se does not extend to “an individual who is not licensed as an attorney” appearing on another person’s behalf. United States v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008).The Court therefore dismisses the Jane Roe plaintiffs without prejudice from this action.
2 It is not clear that either Jacqueline Rosenberg or Eltha Jordan intended to be parties in any of the anonymous cases. Neither has responded to Judge Stanton’s orders. Only Rosenberg has submitted signed documents to the court and stated the identities of the plaintiffs in the anonymous cases. B. Order to Show Cause The Court finds that a leave-to-file sanctionmay be appropriate, in light of Rosenberg’s litigation history. “[C]ourts may resort to restrictive measures that except from normally available procedures litigants who have abused their litigation opportunities.” Inre Martin- Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 228 (2d Cir. 1993). A court’s power to restrict the litigation of abusive and
vexatious litigants is an “ancient one” thatis now codified at28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the AllWrits Act. Polur v. Raffe, 912 F.2d 52, 57 (2d Cir. 1990)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).But “[t]he unequivocal rule in this circuit is that the district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant sua spontewithout providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.” See Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998)(per curiam). Rosenberg has filed multiple anonymous cases in this courtin which Judge Stanton has issued orders advising Rosenberg of the proper procedure to obtain leave to proceed under a pseudonym. Judge Stanton has also warned Rosenberg that he may be sanctioned for his failure to comply with the court’s rules and procedures. See ECF 1:20-CV-10260, 4, 7. But Rosenberg has failed to heed the warning, instead submittinga barrage of frivolous letters and motions
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN ROE; JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, 21-CV-1397(LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TO SHOW DATA ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC., et al., CAUSEUNDER 28 U.S.C. §1651 Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Rudy Rosenberg, proceeding under the pseudonym “John Roe,” brings this pro se action on behalf of himself and two other plaintiffs whom he identifies as “Jane Roe” and “Jane Roe 1.” For the following reasons, the Court directs Rosenberg to submit a declaration within thirty days setting forth good cause why the Court should not impose a leave-to-file sanctionon him.The Court also denies Rosenberg’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP), and dismisses this case. BACKGROUND Since May 2020, the court has received at least four actions in which the plaintiffs seek to proceed under the pseudonyms John Roe and Jane Does (the “anonymous cases”),none of which was accompanied by amotionfor permission to proceed anonymously.1 See Roe v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV-10260, 3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2021); Roe v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV- 10188, 3 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 3, 2020); Roe v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV-9635,3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2021);Roe v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV-4059, 2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2020).The actions were assignedtoJudge Louis Stanton, and in each case he determined that the
1The complaints do not contain the plaintiffs’ real names, addresses, or signatures, and are submitted without payment of the filing fees or anIFPapplication for each plaintiff. complaint did not comply with Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “[t]he title of [a] complaint must name all the parties.” Judge Stanton therefore directed the plaintiffs in each case to (1) submit an amended complaint with their real names, signatures, and addresses; (2) pay the $400.00 in fees required to file a civil action or each submit a completed IFP application; and (3) submit a motion to proceed anonymouslystatingthe
reasons why the Court should permit the plaintiffs to do so. The plaintiffs have failed to comply with the orders, and three of the cases have been dismissed for noncompliance. See ECF 1:20- CV-10260,7; ECF 1:20-CV-9635,5; ECF 1:20-CV-4059, 4. On January 25, 2021, in an order issued in Roe v. City of New York, No. 20-CV-10260, Judge Stantonstatedhisbelief that all of the anonymous cases had been filed by Rosenberg, noting that state-court trial transcripts and other documents attached to the complaint identified Rosenberg as John Roe. ECF 1:20-CV-10260, 4, at 6. Judge Stantonconcluded that Rosenberg’s litigation history and the plaintiffs’ consistent failure to respond to the Court’s orders in the anonymous cases “strongly suggest that these filings were made maliciously and with the intent
to harass.” (Id.) Judge Stanton also warned Rosenberg that “the Court will not continue to entertain these filings” and may impose sanctions, including directing the Clerk of Court to return incomplete filings.(Idat 7.) Rosenberg responded to Judge Stanton’s order by filing multiple frivolous letters and miscellaneous motions in the anonymous cases, in which he alleged judicial misconduct and challenged Judge Stanton’s and then-Chief Judge Colleen McMahon’s authority to make rulings in his cases.See ECF 1:20-CV-10260,5-6; ECF 1:20-CV-10188, 6; ECF 1:20-CV-9635,7-9; ECF 1:20-CV-4059,7-9.In thesesubmissions,Rosenbergidentified himself as John Roe and identifiedJacqueline Rosenberg and Eltha Joseph as the two Jane Doe plaintiffs.2 Similar to the other anonymous cases, Rosenberg submits thispurported employment discriminationaction under the pseudonym John Roe and seeks to bring claims on behalf of himself and two Jane Roes. Rosenberg also submits a motion for leave to proceed IFP, in which
he identifies himself as the “affiant.”(ECF 1-1, at 1.) But noIFP applications have been submittedfor the Jane Roes nor is there a motion for leave to proceed under the pseudonyms. DISCUSSION A. Claims on behalf of Jane Roes Rosenberg bring claims on behalf of two Jane Roe plaintiffs. The Court presumes, as in the other anonymous cases, that the Roe plaintiffs are actually Jacqueline Rosenberg and Eltha Jordan.But there is no indication in the complaint or elsewhere that either Jacqueline Rosenberg or Eltha Jordan intended to bring this action. And as a nonattorney, Rosenbergmay not appear pro se on behalf ofany other party. Under 28 U.S.C. §1654, parties in federal court “ may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” The statute “recognizes that an individual generally has the right to proceed pro se with respect to his own claims or claims against him
personally” or to be represented by a licensed attorney. Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir. 2009). The right to proceed pro se does not extend to “an individual who is not licensed as an attorney” appearing on another person’s behalf. United States v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008).The Court therefore dismisses the Jane Roe plaintiffs without prejudice from this action.
2 It is not clear that either Jacqueline Rosenberg or Eltha Jordan intended to be parties in any of the anonymous cases. Neither has responded to Judge Stanton’s orders. Only Rosenberg has submitted signed documents to the court and stated the identities of the plaintiffs in the anonymous cases. B. Order to Show Cause The Court finds that a leave-to-file sanctionmay be appropriate, in light of Rosenberg’s litigation history. “[C]ourts may resort to restrictive measures that except from normally available procedures litigants who have abused their litigation opportunities.” Inre Martin- Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 228 (2d Cir. 1993). A court’s power to restrict the litigation of abusive and
vexatious litigants is an “ancient one” thatis now codified at28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the AllWrits Act. Polur v. Raffe, 912 F.2d 52, 57 (2d Cir. 1990)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).But “[t]he unequivocal rule in this circuit is that the district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant sua spontewithout providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.” See Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998)(per curiam). Rosenberg has filed multiple anonymous cases in this courtin which Judge Stanton has issued orders advising Rosenberg of the proper procedure to obtain leave to proceed under a pseudonym. Judge Stanton has also warned Rosenberg that he may be sanctioned for his failure to comply with the court’s rules and procedures. See ECF 1:20-CV-10260, 4, 7. But Rosenberg has failed to heed the warning, instead submittinga barrage of frivolous letters and motions
challenging the court’s rulings. SeeECF 1:20-CV-10260, 5-6; ECF 1:20-CV-9635, 7-9; ECF 1:20-CV-4059, 7-9. In addition, Rosenberg has a history of repeatedly filing inappropriate motions and then failing to comply withcourt’s ordersin other cases, including orders to file complete IFP applications in his own name. See, e.g., Rosenberg v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV-3911, 13 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2020) (describing the plaintiff’s disregard of two previous orders requesting IFP applications, denying an unsigned order to show cause as substantially similar to four earlier submissions, which were also denied, and noting that the plaintiff filed a premature notice of appeal); Rosenberg has previously filed motions to proceed anonymously or under a pseudonym, which the Court has denied. See, e.g., id., ECF 1:20-CV-3911, 9, at 5 (“[T]he allegations at issue in this case are not of a highly sensitive and personal nature, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated any real, rather than speculative, harm if his name remains in the judicial record.”); Rosenberg v. Shemiran Co. LLC, ECF 1:20-CV-0229, 6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2020) (denying Rosenberg’s request to proceed anonymously); see also Rosenberg v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV-4012, 11
(S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2020) (denying Rosenberg’s request to restrict public access to the pleadings in the case). In light of this litigation history,Rosenberg was or should have been aware of the requirements to obtain permission to file an anonymous case. See Sledge v. Kooi, 564 F.3d 105, 109-110 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing circumstances where frequent pro se litigant may be charged with knowledge of particular legal requirements).As Judge Stanton surmised, it appears Rosenberg is submitting these filings maliciously and with the intent to harass. The Court therefore denies Rosenberg’s IFP application and dismisses this case. The Court further directs Rosenbergto show cause why he should not be barred from filing any further actions in this
Court without first obtaining leave. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Rosenberg mustsubmit to this Court a declaration setting forth good cause whythe Court should not imposethis leave-to-file injunction uponhim. IfRosenberg failsto submit a declaration within the time directed, or if hisdeclaration does not set forth good cause why this injunction should not be entered, hewill be barred from filing any further actions unless he first obtains permission from the Court to do so.The Court finds that the leave-to-file sanction is necessary to enjoin Rosenberg from continuing to engage in a pattern of vexatious litigation. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Rudolph Rosenberg at 244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2992, New York, NY 10001.3 The Court denies Rosenberg’s IFP application and dismisses the complaint. Rosenberg shall have thirtydays to show cause by declaration why an order should not be entered imposing
a leave-to-file sanction for all future actions. Adeclaration form is attached to this 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 thereforeIFPstatus is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: May 7, 2021 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge
3 Rosenberg has not provided a physical or email address to the Court for this action. The Court is directing the Clerk of Court to mail the order to an address Rosenberg provided inone of the cases he filed in his own name. See Rosenberg, No. 20-CV-3911 (LLS). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Write the first and last name of each plaintiff or
petitioner.
Case No. CV -against-
Write the first and last name of each defendant or respondent. DECLARATION
Briefly explain above the purpose of the declaration, for example, “in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” or “in Response to Order to Show Cause.” I, , declare under penalty of perjury that the following facts are true and correct: In the space below, describe any facts that are relevant to the motion or that respond to a court order. You may also refer to and attach any relevant documents. Attach additional pages and documents if necessary.
Executed on (date) Signature
Name Prison Identification # (if incarcerated)
Address City State Zip Code
Telephone Number (if available) E-mail Address (if available)