O'Diah v. United States Small Business Administration
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-04685
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In O'Diah v. United States Small Business Administration, Judge Caproni dismissed the action without prejudice for violating a prior filing restriction.
O'Diah's lawsuit against the United States Small Business Administration and the other named defendants was dismissed without prejudice; the court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
What happened
In O'Diah v. United States Small Business Administration, O'Diah filed a new lawsuit after a prior order barred him from filing civil actions in the court without first obtaining permission. He paid the filing fee but did not include the required copy of that order or seek permission as required.
O'Diah sued more than 40 defendants and alleged a broad conspiracy involving discrimination, harassment, false conviction, and denial of court access because of his race. He also asserted claims under federal civil-rights laws and state-law claims for assault, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court found no indication that the complaint stated viable claims and said the filing continued O'Diah's pattern of frivolous and abusive litigation.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the action without prejudice because O'Diah failed to comply with the earlier filing restriction. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
The detailed version
- O'Diah v. United States Small Business Administration · No. 1:22-cv-04685
- Valerie Caproni
- June 14, 2022
Background
The court stated that O'Diah had previously been barred from filing a new civil action in the Southern District of New York without prior court permission. To bring a new case, he was required to submit a motion for permission to file and a copy of the earlier filing-restriction order.
O'Diah paid the filing fee for this action but did not comply with those requirements. The court also stated that he did not show a good-faith basis for suing each named defendant. The opinion referenced similar filing restrictions and dismissals in other proceedings and stated that court records showed O'Diah had filed almost 100 federal cases around the country.
Claims and the Court's Reasoning
The complaint named more than 40 defendants, including government agencies and officials, judges, private attorneys, and private entities. O'Diah alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy to discriminate against and harass him, falsely convict him, and deny him access to the courts because of his race. He invoked 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 and also asserted state-law claims for assault, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The court described the 39-page complaint as a collection of allegations about unrelated events seeking billions of dollars in damages. It found no indication that the complaint presented viable legal claims and stated that some claims had been raised previously. Because the filing violated the earlier permission requirement and continued what the court characterized as a pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation, the court declined to grant permission to proceed or other requested relief.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to comply with the September 5, 2014 order. The opinion also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The dismissal was based on compliance with the prior filing restriction; the court did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.