Ank Bey El v. Ferraiola
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-07632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ank Bey El v. Ferraiola, Chief Judge McMahon barred further related filings without court permission and closed the case.
Yashua Ank Bey El is barred from filing related actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining court permission. Any future action filed without permission may be dismissed.
What happened
In Ank Bey El v. Ferraiola, Yashua Ank Bey El represented himself. The court had previously dismissed his claims brought on behalf of the government for lack of standing and his remaining claims as frivolous.
The court found his response insufficient to avoid a filing restriction concerning the Brooklyn property and related foreclosure proceedings. It required him to obtain permission before filing another related action, attach the proposed complaint and the order to his request, and file that request with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the restriction, directed the Clerk to close the case, and stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so he could not proceed without paying the appeal fees.
The detailed version
- Ank Bey El v. Ferraiola · No. 1:19-cv-07632
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 2, 2019
Background
Yashua Ank Bey El filed the action without a lawyer. On October 1, 2019, the court dismissed his claims brought on behalf of the government for lack of standing and dismissed his remaining claims as frivolous. The court also ordered him to explain why it should not restrict future filings about property at 393 Montauk Avenue in Brooklyn and the related foreclosure proceedings.
He filed an affirmation on October 25, 2019. The court found that his arguments against the restriction were insufficient.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon barred Yashua Ank Bey El from filing any further action in the Southern District of New York concerning the Brooklyn property or the related foreclosure proceedings unless the court first gave him permission to file it.
To seek permission, he must file a motion with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit and attach both a copy of his proposed complaint and a copy of the bar order. The court stated that any action filed without first seeking permission would be dismissed for violating the order. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The opinion does not state that the court considered the merits of the underlying property or foreclosure disputes in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.