Hines v. New York State Division of Human Rights Staff
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-04629
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hines v. New York State Division of Human Rights Staff, Judge Swain barred Hines from future IFP civil filings without permission.
Dashon Hines, who may not file future civil actions without paying the filing fee in the Southern District of New York unless he first obtains the Court's permission.
What happened
Dashon Hines filed this case without a lawyer, and the Court had previously dismissed it as frivolous and for failing to state a valid claim. The Court also noted that Hines had filed many other cases that were dismissed as frivolous or lacking merit.
After giving Hines an opportunity to oppose a filing restriction, the Court found that his litigation history showed a narrower sanction would not deter further abusive filings. The Second Circuit had also dismissed five of his appeals as frivolous.
Judge Swain barred Hines from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee in this Court unless he first obtains permission. He must submit his proposed complaint and a copy of this order with any request for permission; the Court also closed the case, entered judgment, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Hines v. New York State Division of Human Rights Staff · No. 1:21-cv-04629
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 13, 2022
Background
Dashon Hines filed the action without a lawyer. On June 14, 2021, the Court dismissed the action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court also noted that Hines had filed scores of other cases that had been dismissed as frivolous or otherwise lacking merit, and ordered him to explain why he should not be barred from filing additional civil actions without paying the filing fee in the Southern District of New York.
Hines appealed. The opinion states that the Second Circuit consolidated five appeals, including the appeal from this case, and dismissed them as frivolous. Hines also responded to the order to show cause, attaching a 2015 Second Circuit mandate involving an earlier related proceeding. That mandate had directed the lower court to consider whether a narrower sanction could deter Hines's prior abusive litigation without completely denying him access to the court.
Court's Reasoning
The Court reviewed Hines's subsequent litigation history and concluded that a narrower sanction would not deter further vexatious litigation. The Court also stated that Hines had received an opportunity to respond before the filing restriction was imposed, but that his opposition was insufficient.
Order
The Court issued the bar order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. It bars Hines from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee in this Court unless he first obtains the Court's permission. Any motion for permission must include a copy of the proposed complaint and a copy of this order, and must be filed with the Court's Pro Se Intake Unit. If Hines files an action without first seeking permission, the Court will dismiss it for failure to comply with the order.
The Court warned that continued filing of frivolous documents could lead to additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. The Clerk was directed to close the action and issue judgment. The Court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hines fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.