Keita v. Chase Bank
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-07155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Keita v. Chase Bank, Judge Swain barred future fee-free filings in this court without permission.
The plaintiff, Mohammed Keita, is barred from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee in the Southern District of New York unless he first obtains the court’s permission. The order also affects any appeal from this order by denying fee-waived status for that appeal.
What happened
In Keita v. Chase Bank, the court said it had dismissed the action for improper venue and noted that the plaintiff had filed seven other actions in the court, all transferred to another federal court.
The court had ordered the plaintiff to explain why he should not be barred from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained permission. He did not submit the required explanation.
Judge Swain then barred the plaintiff from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee in this court unless he first obtains permission. She also directed the Clerk to close the case, denied fee-waived status for any appeal, and warned that violating the order or submitting frivolous documents could lead to dismissal or additional sanctions.
The detailed version
- Keita v. Chase Bank · No. 1:23-cv-07155
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 11, 2023
Background
Mohammed Keita and MK, Jr. filed the action against Chase Bank, also known as JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., Neha Gopinath, and Najia Hossain. The opinion states that the action was filed without a lawyer. On August 28, 2023, the court dismissed the action for improper venue. It also noted that the plaintiff had filed seven other actions in that court, all of which had been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where the plaintiff had been described as a “serial litigator.”
Bar Order
The court ordered the plaintiff to submit a declaration explaining why he should not be barred from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee, commonly called filing in forma pauperis, or “IFP.” The plaintiff did not submit the required declaration within the ordered time.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court barred the plaintiff from filing future civil actions IFP in the Southern District of New York unless he first obtained permission from the court. Any request for permission must include the proposed complaint and a copy of the bar order and must be filed with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The court stated that any action filed without the required permission request would be dismissed for failure to comply with the order.
Judge Swain also warned that submitting frivolous documents could result in additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. The Clerk was directed to close the action, terminate pending motions, and enter judgment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
This order imposed a filing restriction and closed the action; it did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.