Purisima v. Harris
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-08314
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Purisima v. Harris, Judge Ramos vacated fee-waiver approval, denied filing permission, and dismissed the action without prejudice for violating prior restrictions and asserting frivolous claims.
Anton C. Purisima’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and his fee-waiver status for an appeal was denied. The opinion did not reach the merits of his allegations against the defendants.
What happened
In Purisima v. Harris, Anton C. Purisima filed an action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. A 2013 court order required him to obtain permission before filing future civil actions without paying that fee. He alleged discrimination, retaliation, denied benefits, assaults, and other harms involving himself and family members.
The court said Purisima had not obtained the required permission before asking to proceed without paying the filing fee. It also found that his claims were frivolous because the allegations were clearly baseless or relied on legal theories with no merit.
Judge Ramos vacated the earlier order allowing Purisima to proceed without paying the filing fee, denied him permission to file the action without paying that fee, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Purisima v. Harris · No. 1:24-cv-08314
- Edgardo Ramos
- Nov. 8, 2024
Background
Anton C. Purisima filed this action without a lawyer. He submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without paying the filing fee, and a request to file a new case. He later submitted a proposed complaint and a letter that the court treated as a supplement to that proposed complaint. Although other individuals were named as plaintiffs in the proposed complaint, only Purisima signed it, so the court treated him as the sole plaintiff.
A May 29, 2013 order in a previous related proceeding barred Purisima from filing future civil actions in the court without first obtaining permission to file without paying the filing fee. That order also required any request for permission to use that procedure to have a specified caption and to include both the proposed complaint and a copy of the 2013 order. The court had granted Purisima IFP status on November 4, 2024, but had not first granted him permission to file the action as the earlier order required.
Allegations and Requests
Purisima alleged continuing discrimination and retaliation based on his political affiliation with the Republican Party. He also alleged that family members in the Philippines experienced discrimination and retaliation because of their political affiliations. He claimed that he and family members were denied various benefits, including workers’ compensation, Social Security disability, and Social Security retirement benefits, and that his children were denied medical and dental care. He also described an assault involving his son about 30 years earlier and an assault involving himself on or about June 4, 2024.
Purisima sought payments for wages, workers’ compensation, and Social Security disability benefits; return or payment for property allegedly taken in the Philippines; punitive damages; criminal referrals; removal of defendants from office; orders affecting candidacy for public office; and civil and criminal proceedings in the United States and the Philippines. In his later letter, he asked to add defendants, sought to disqualify Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate based on her actions as California’s Attorney General, and requested criminal charges concerning alleged elder abuse and incorrect information sent online or through the internet.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Purisima had not obtained permission to file the action before receiving IFP status, as required by the 2013 order. The court also concluded that the claims were frivolous, meaning that the allegations were clearly baseless or rested on legal theories that could not support relief. It therefore determined that the November 4, 2024 IFP order had been issued in error.
Disposition
Judge Ramos vacated the November 4, 2024 order granting Purisima IFP status, denied Purisima leave to file the action IFP, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.