Futia v. Roberts
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:23-cv-01774
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Futia v. Roberts, Judge Briccetti denied Futia’s renewed request to remand and warned that repeated frivolous filings could lead to sanctions.
Anthony J. Futia, Jr., who represented himself; the order denied his renewed motion to remand, warned him about possible sanctions for continued repetitive or frivolous filings, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Futia v. Roberts, Anthony J. Futia, Jr., who was representing himself, filed a document called a “Jurisdiction Challenge” on June 15, 2023. The document was identical to one he had previously filed.
The court had already treated the earlier filing as a request to send the case back and denied it. The court treated the new filing as a renewed request to remand and denied it for the reasons stated in its earlier order.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti warned Futia that continued repetitive or frivolous filings could lead to sanctions. The court also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Futia v. Roberts · No. 7:23-cv-01774
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 15, 2023
Background
Anthony J. Futia, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a document titled “Jurisdiction Challenge” on June 15, 2023. The court stated that this filing was identical to a document Futia had filed on March 29, 2023.
In an April 25, 2023, order, the court had treated the earlier “Jurisdiction Challenge” as a motion to remand, meaning a request to send the case back, and had denied that motion.
Ruling
The court treated Futia’s June 15 filing as a renewed motion to remand. Relying on the reasons given in its April 25 order, the court denied the request.
The court warned that it would not review repetitive or frivolous submissions seeking relief that had already been denied. It stated that continued conduct of that kind could result in sanctions under the court’s inherent authority or under Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order stated that a copy would be mailed to Futia at the address on the docket.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on a renewed request to remand without addressing the underlying merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.