Bey v. State of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03490
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bey v. State of New York, Judge Swain barred Universal Justice Bey from filing future removal actions without permission and denied appeal IFP status.
Universal Justice Bey is barred from filing future removal actions without first obtaining court permission when seeking to proceed without paying the filing fee. Any appeal is not eligible for fee-free status under this order, and future frivolous filings may lead to additional sanctions.
What happened
In Bey v. State of New York, Universal Justice Bey filed an action seeking to move a state criminal case into federal court. The court had already sent the matter back to Mount Vernon City Court and noted that Bey had previously made three improper attempts to remove a state criminal case.
The court had given Bey 30 days to explain why a limited filing restriction should not be imposed. Bey did not submit the required statement or otherwise contact the court.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain therefore barred Bey from filing future removal actions without first obtaining permission, when filing without paying the court fee. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and warned that further frivolous filings could lead to additional penalties.
The detailed version
- Bey v. State of New York · No. 1:23-cv-03490
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 27, 2023
Background
Universal Justice Bey, representing himself and asking to proceed without paying the filing fee, brought this action to remove a state court criminal matter to federal court. In an earlier order dated July 5, 2023, the court remanded the matter to Mount Vernon City Court. The court also noted that Bey had previously attempted three improper removals of a state criminal action to this court.
The July 5 order warned that additional duplicative or meritless litigation could result in a filing injunction, meaning a restriction on filing new cases. Consistent with the requirement that a person receive notice and an opportunity to respond before such an injunction is imposed, the court directed Bey to explain by declaration within 30 days why a limited filing injunction should not be entered.
Bey’s Response
Bey did not submit a declaration and did not otherwise communicate with the court. The opinion states that the bar order therefore issued.
Ruling
The court barred Bey under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing any new removal action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained permission from the court. Any request for permission must include a copy of the proposed removal action and a copy of the bar order, and must be filed with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. If Bey files a removal action without first seeking permission, the action will be remanded for failure to comply with the order.
The court also warned that continued frivolous filings could result in additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.