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 ordered pro se plaintiff Anthony J. Futia, Jr. to pay $500 for repeated frivolous filings and disobeying court orders.
Anthony J. Futia, Jr. was ordered to pay a $500 financial sanction by November 13, 2023. The order also denied him permission to appeal without paying court fees and warned that further frivolous filings could lead to additional sanctions.
What happened
In Futia v. Roberts, Anthony J. Futia, Jr., representing himself, repeatedly filed documents the court considered repetitive or frivolous, despite warnings to stop. The court had previously denied his demand that court officers and government defendants file oaths, bonds, and financial records.
The court ordered Futia to explain why he should not be financially sanctioned and to provide a current personal financial statement. His response included bank statements but not the required financial statement and repeated the same unsupported assertions.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti found that Futia had not shown good cause and imposed a $500 financial sanction under the court’s inherent authority. Futia was ordered to pay the Clerk by November 13, 2023, and the court denied him permission to appeal without paying court fees because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Futia v. Roberts · No. 7:23-cv-01774
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
Anthony J. Futia, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a document titled “2nd Demand for Oaths & Bonds.” He asserted that court officers and government-agent defendants were required to file copies of their oaths, bonds, and financial information with the court. The court had previously denied that request because it was not grounded in law and was frivolous.
The court stated that Futia had repeatedly submitted repetitive or frivolous filings despite a specific order directing him to stop. The court had also warned him several times that continued conduct could result in financial sanctions under the court’s inherent authority or Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Show-Cause Response
The court ordered Futia to explain in writing why a financial sanction should not be imposed for deliberately violating court orders. It also ordered him to submit an accurate and current personal financial statement.
Futia responded with various bank statements, but he did not provide the required personal financial statement. The court found that his response largely repeated unsupported assertions, including claims that the court had failed to comply with the “Law of the Land” and that court officers had to provide him with a “Public Officials Bond.”
Ruling
The court concluded that Futia had not shown good cause why sanctions should not be imposed. It found that his response showed he was not deterred by the court’s prior warnings. Exercising its inherent authority, the court imposed a $500 financial sanction for his willful disregard of court orders and repeated vexatious filings.
The court ordered Futia to pay $500 to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by November 13, 2023. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti warned that further frivolous filings could result in additional financial sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.