Pedotti v. Beth Israel Medical Center
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-02306
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pedotti v. Beth Israel Medical Center, Judge Rochon barred further civil actions without permission after prior filings were dismissed as frivolous.
Holiday Oljii Anna Pedotti II is barred from filing future civil actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining the court’s permission; future filings without permission may be dismissed, and additional frivolous submissions may lead to sanctions.
What happened
In Pedotti v. Beth Israel Medical Center, Holiday Oljii Anna Pedotti II filed the action without a lawyer against Beth Israel Medical Center, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Social Security Administration. The court had already dismissed this action as frivolous and noted that at least six of her other cases had also been dismissed as frivolous.
The court gave Pedotti 30 days to explain why it should not restrict her future filings. She submitted a declaration, but the court found her arguments insufficient. The court therefore barred her from filing future civil actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining permission.
Judge Rochon ordered Pedotti to submit her proposed complaint and a copy of the order with any request for permission, and directed that such requests be filed with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The court closed the case, warned that additional frivolous filings could lead to monetary penalties, and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Pedotti v. Beth Israel Medical Center · No. 1:24-cv-02306
- Rochon
- Apr. 18, 2024
Background
Plaintiff filed this action without a lawyer. On April 16, 2024, the court dismissed the action as frivolous. The court also noted that at least six other cases filed by Plaintiff had been dismissed as frivolous. It ordered Plaintiff to show cause, by declaration within 30 days, why she should not be barred from filing additional civil actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining the court’s permission.
Plaintiff submitted a declaration on April 16, 2024. The opinion states that her arguments against imposing the filing restriction were insufficient.
Ruling
The court issued a bar order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. It barred Plaintiff from filing future civil actions in this court without first obtaining leave to file. Any motion for leave must include a copy of 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 motion for leave would be dismissed for failure to comply with the order.
The court also warned that continued submission of frivolous documents could result in additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action and terminate any pending motions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court also directed the Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the order if she appeared at the Pro Se Intake Unit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.