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 filing and request to remand, and barred further repetitive filings.
Anthony J. Futia, Jr., was directly affected by the denial and filing restrictions; the defendants involved in the pending requests to dismiss were also affected because the court barred further additional replies.
What happened
In Futia v. Roberts, Anthony J. Futia, Jr., who was representing himself, filed a document called a “Writ of Error Coram Nobis Non Judice.” He argued that the court had not properly established its authority over the case and challenged earlier orders.
The court denied the filing, explaining that this type of writ had been abolished in civil cases. It also denied Futia’s request to send the case back to the Westchester County Supreme Court, finding that nothing in his latest filing justified reconsidering earlier decisions. The court treated part of the filing as another reply opposing pending requests to dismiss the case.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered Futia to stop submitting repetitive or frivolous filings. The court barred him from filing anything further about the court’s authority over the case or additional replies opposing the pending requests to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Futia v. Roberts · No. 7:23-cv-01774
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
Anthony J. Futia, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a document titled “Writ of Error Coram Nobis Non Judice.” He argued that the court’s earlier orders were improper because, in his view, the court had not established the proper legal basis for exercising authority over the case. The court also understood part of the filing as another reply opposing the pending requests to dismiss filed by Raymond Roberts, Douglas O’Donnell, and Kilolo Kijakzi.
Rulings
The court denied Futia’s “Writ of Error Coram Nobis Non Judice.” It stated that the writ of coram nobis had been abolished in civil cases in 1948.
To the extent Futia argued that the court lacked authority over the case and therefore should send it back to the Supreme Court of Westchester County, the court denied that request. The court noted that it had previously denied requests to send the case back and found that the latest filing did not justify reconsidering those decisions.
The court had previously allowed Futia special consideration as a person proceeding without a lawyer and treated an earlier submission as an additional reply. But it stated that representing himself did not give him the right to file repetitive or frivolous documents. The court ordered him to stop doing so and prohibited further filings about the court’s authority over the case or additional replies opposing the pending requests to dismiss. Chambers was directed to mail him a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.