Kaul, MD v. Oetken

Background

Richard Arjun Kaul, MD, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action against James Paul Oetken, Edward Sponzilli, Paul E. Dwyer, Daniel M. Stolz, David J. D’Aloia, and Jay W. Brown. The complaint concerned an alleged conspiracy involving the denial of Kaul’s medical license and litigation that followed. Although the caption also listed Jane Doe and John Doe as plaintiffs, the court found no information indicating that anyone else intended to participate and therefore referred to a single plaintiff.

The court had previously entered an injunction barring Kaul from filing in any United States district court an action, motion, petition, complaint, or request for relief related to the denial of his medical license or related litigation against specified defendants, unless he first obtained permission from the court. The required request had to be titled “Request for Permission to File under Filing Injunction” and submitted with the proposed filing.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the current defendants included the judge who issued the earlier injunction, a lawyer Kaul had sued in the earlier round of this case, and lawyers who had represented parties in that earlier litigation. Because the current claims concerned the medical-license denial and subsequent litigation, the court held that the earlier injunction applied. Kaul had not requested permission before filing this action.

Rulings

The court granted Kaul’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion. It dismissed the action for failure to comply with the injunction issued in the earlier round of this case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.