MICHAEL A. TELESCA, District Judge.
Plaintiff Dona J. Jackson ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se,
This case has a long and tortured history and, despite being filed in the Northern District of New York on May 9, 2003, it has failed to progress past the pleading stage for the last nine years. (NDNY Docket Sheet, Civil Docket No. 129, Attachment 2). In addition to her original complaint, Plaintiff filed three amended complaints in the Northern District of New York. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on February 2, 2005, and Plaintiff cross-moved for the immediate production of documents and to enjoin the New York State Attorney General from representing the Defendants. Defendants motion was granted-in-part and denied-in-part, and Plaintiff's motion was denied in all respects on August 16, 2005 by Senior District Judge Howard G. Munson. Specifically, Judge Munson dismissed Plaintiff's claims arising under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and her claims for conspiracy, but he found that she could proceed with the remaining claims, even those that were seemingly time-barred, as she had alleged a "continuing violation."
Following Judge Munson's decision, the Defendants answered the Second Amended Complaint. However, Defendants then learned that Plaintiff had served a different complaint on the Defendants than that which was filed with the Court. (NDNY Docket, 10/28/2005.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to file a Third Amended Complaint. The Defendants' initially opposed the motion, but later stipulated to the filing of the Third Amended Complaint. The Defendants also notified the Court on February 27, 2006 that Plaintiff had filed a related case in the Western District of New York almost two years prior on August 8, 2001 (
In the meantime, in addition to her motion to amend, Plaintiff filed several other motions requesting that the Court (1) compel discovery, (2) disqualify the Assistant Attorney General assigned to the case from representing the Defendants, and (3) appoint a special prosecutor and/or convene a grand jury to investigate her allegations. The Defendants cross-moved to transfer the case to the Western District of New York. On June 30, 2006, Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles issued an order denying all of Plaintiff's requests and transferring this case to this District. Judge Peebles noted that this District would be better equipped to resolve the impact of the dismissal of the
This case has had a similarly circuitous history in this District. Upon transfer, Plaintiff filed a "combined motion" in which she requested, inter alia, that this Court (1) reconsider and/or vacate Judge Peebles transfer order, (2) enjoin the NYS Attorney General and the assigned Assistant Attorney General from representing the Defendants, (3) order a default against the Defendants for failing to answer the Third Amended Complaint, (4) empanel a grand jury and/or a special prosecutor to investigate her case, and (5) disqualify Judge Peebles from presiding over this case. On February 6, 2007, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion in its entirety. The Court specifically noted that several of Plaintiff's requests were improper and/or had already been denied in the Northern District, and that Plaintiff's request for a default was premature, as it appeared that the Third Amended Complaint had never actually been served on the Defendants.
Having not heard from the Plaintiff since she filed her "combined motion" in 2006, on April 18, 2011, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)("Rule 41(b)"), why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Plaintiff responded by filing a response and two additional lengthy and argumentative motions, which sought much of the same relief that had already been denied by this Court and by Judge Munson and Judge Peebles in the Northern District on multiple occasions. Plaintiff was warned that continuing to file repetitive and frivolous motions may result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 ("Rule 11"). (Docket No. 154.)
This Court then referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson to hold a status conference to facilitate moving the case forward and to determine whether counsel should be appointed for the Plaintiff. As discussed in footnote 1, Plaintiff refused the appointment of counsel, but she continued to file numerous frivolous motions with the Court. (Docket No. 163, 166, 176.) She has been repeatedly warned by the Court that the filing of such motions may result in sanctions under Rule 11, including the dismissal of her case for her failure to follow the orders of this Court.
Then, on November 16, 2011, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss raises, for the first time, the issue of res judicata, and it also raises several issues that were previously decided by Judge Munson in his Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court will address the issue of res judicata and, as discussed in more detail below, the Court will also re-examine the statute of limitations issues previously raised by the Defendants.
This case involves the conflicting claims of two actions filed by the Plaintiff in this Court. Accordingly, the Court must examine the facts of both cases to determine whether Plaintiff may proceed with any of the claims alleged in this case.
Plaintiff's complaints are lengthy and, at times, incomprehensible. While Plaintiff sets forth some factual allegations, they are interlaced with repeated conclusory statements regarding the defendants conduct; which, according to the Plaintiff, involved, inter alia, "domestic terrorist" activity, "prisoner of war tactics" and "kangaroo trials." She also repeatedly compares the defendants in both cases to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. The Court has thoroughly reviewed both of the Complaints in an attempt to compare the actual factual allegations. But, considering the nature of the submissions, a side-by-side comparison of the complaints is futile.
Plaintiff filed the
Under a heading entitled "Nature of Suit," Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a "scorched earth" campaign against her, which has resulted in the denial of her constitutional rights and has caused her emotional and physical injury, and by which she has been denied medical treatment and "non-biased/non-prejudicial access to. . .law enforcement [and the] legal [and] judicial system." She states that she was the victim of false arrests and malicious prosecutions and that the Defendants were "criminally targeting, victimizing and harassing" her and her husband. She also states that the Defendants violated RICO. At various locations in the complaint she states that she is seeking an "Order of Protection" preventing the Defendants from "any further felonious [and] unconstitutional reprisals, crimes, false arrests, unlawful incarcerations, State Police/Sheriff Deputies' violent brutality, battering, bruising, dragging, etc."
While not cogently or chronologically describing the facts, the
(1) an arrest and prosecution for Aggravated Unlicenced Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the third Degree ("AUO 3
(2) an arrest for 4th degree criminal possession of a weapon in October 1999 while Plaintiff was at the Ontario County Courthouse. Plaintiff states that this was a "setup" and that the arresting officers lied during the trial for this offense, which apparently occurred in July 2000 before Canandaigua City Court Judge Stephen D. Aronson.
(3) an incident in May 2000 in which a Village of Wolcott police officer and NYSP officer Weston "trespassed on Plaintiffs' property" and "forcibly [and] violently conducted an [u]nconstitutional non-warranted armed home invasion/break in of Plaintiff's home." The officers were seeking to arrest Plaintiff's son.
(4) from April 2, 2000 to June 16, 2001, she was denied "justice/ a jury trial and was subject to unlawful incarcerations, false arrests, setup/frames, etc."
(5) a suspension of Plaintiff's driver's licence by Justice Patricia Axsmith in May or June 2001, based on her failure to appear in court;
(6) instances of possible excessive force on April 18, 2001 and April 30,2001 by the NYSP and possibly the Ontario County Sheriffs relating to her arrest for Criminal Contempt.
(7) an involuntary transport to the Hutchings Psychiatric Center on April 30, 2001 ordered by Justice Axsmith;
One year after denying Plaintiffs' request for service by the U.S. Marshal, this court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiffs' failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). (Civil Docket 01-CV-6382, No. 3-4.) The Court warned Plaintiffs that the case would be dismissed with prejudice if they failed to show good cause for the delay. Plaintiffs then filed a response to the order and several motions — for service by the US Marshal, to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel. District Judge David G. Larimer denied the motions and dismissed the
In this Complaint, in approximately 54 pages of largely conclusory and argumentative verbiage, Plaintiff alleges twelve enumerated
Beginning in 1993, Plaintiff and her neighbors engaged in a property dispute in which Plaintiff was, at one point, awarded an Order of Protection against her neighbors by a Conquest Town Justice. Plaintiff complained to the NYSP on several occasions that her neighbors were not respecting the Order of Protection and that they had, inter alia, destroyed her shrubs and taken and killed her ducks. The NYSP initially refused to intervene, but eventually Defendant NYSP Trooper Dennis Freeman interviewed the neighbors who admitted to stealing and killing the ducks. Freeman did not make an arrest based on this information. Plaintiff then attempted to file a formal complaint against her neighbors, but she was prevented from doing so by NYSP Sergeant Campbell (not a named defendant).
In March and April 1995, Plaintiff met with Defendant NYSP Captain Donald Swain on several occasions to discuss her complaints with the neighbors and the NYSP's lack of response and refusal to enforce the Order of Protection. Defendant Swain asked Plaintiff to sign a written statement regarding her complaint but she "did not sign NYSP Captain Swain's statement because her Miranda Rights were on the statement [and] the dates [and] facts were incorrect." She felt that the NYSP was attempting to "entrap" her by asking her to sign the statement. She alleges that her complaints were never investigated and that following her meetings with Swain, "the NYSP employee's cruel, inhuman [and] debase, retaliatory attacks, kidnappings (a.k.a. false arrests), unlawful imprisonments [and the like] against Plaintiff, exponentially increased [and] became even more frequent, intense, violent [and] vicious." Compl. at ¶¶ 88-99.
Plaintiff attached to her complaint a document labeled "Exhibit `A'", in which she describes the following false arrests, some of which led to prosecutions, which she also alleges were unlawful:
(1) On August 16, 1994, Plaintiff was forcefully arrested by approximately 10 NYSP employees after being stopped in her car. Plaintiff was involuntarily transported to a psychiatric center where she was evaluated and found not to be suffering from any psychological disease. It is unclear from the complaint why Plaintiff was stopped, and it does not appear that any charges were filed in relation to this event.
(2) On September 11, 1994, Plaintiff was arrested for harassment based on a complaint filed by her neighbor. Plaintiff states that this charge was later dismissed "in the name of justice."
(3) On June 15, 1995, Plaintiff was again arrested for harassment based on a complaint filed by her neighbor, and she was also later charged with reckless endangerment, which appears to be related to the same incident. Both charges were dismissed on February 23, 1998.
(4) On February 20, 1997, Plaintiff was stopped and cited for speeding. The citations were later dismissed.
(5) On February 20, 1998, Plaintiff was arrested for harassment, based on a complaint by Plaintiff's "attacker/assailant." Plaintiff alleges that she was the actual victim, but the NYSP prevented her from making a complaint, and instead placed her under arrest. She alleges that the NYSP's co-conspirators, Wayne County Justice Lester Taber and a Wayne County assistant district attorney, held "an unconstitutional trial," that Plaintiff did not attend. Justice Taber granted Plaintiff a conditional discharge, but issued an Order of Protection in favor of Plaintiff's "attacker."
(6) On November 30, 1998, Plaintiff was arrested for AUO 3
(7) On June 10, 1999, Plaintiff was issued a ticket under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1202 (a parking violation), while she was "exercising one of her First Amendment inalienable rights of freedom of expression on Route 104," in Sodus, New York. She alleges that a "kangaroo trial" was held in her absence and she was fined $100. She alleges that Defendant Mowers committed perjury during the trial.
(8) On September 30, 1999, Plaintiff was issued three traffic tickets while driving in the town of Pittsford, New York. She alleges that "co-conspirator" Pittsford Town Court Justice Gallina, refused to dismiss the tickets and a trial was held at which Defendant Bosworth committed perjury. Plaintiff was found guilty of one of the three traffic violations, but the charge was conditionally discharged and Plaintiff was not fined.
(9) While not a false arrest, Plaintiff also alleges that on May 15, 2000, Defendant Weston unlawfully broke into her home.
(10) On September 25, 2000, Plaintiff was stopped by Defendants Burdette and Klinkman and issued a ticket for driving to the left of pavement markings.
(11) On April 18, 2001
Town of Farmington Justice Patricia Axsmith allegedly yelled at the Plaintiff for having filed judicial misconduct complaints against Justice Cooksey. Plaintiff was found to be carrying a tape recorder under her clothing and she was escorted out of the courtroom with force, and placed in a "suicide suit." She alleges that she suffered injury to her wrists and arms during this arrest. She was then taken to a "high security isolated medical area where she [was] left until April 22, 2001." Plaintiff alleges that she was in a catatonic state during this time. Justice Axsmith dismissed the Criminal Contempt charge and ordered that Plaintiff be evaluated at the Hutching's Psychiatric Center in Syracuse, New York. She was transported there on April 30, 2001 and found not to be suffering from any mental disorder.
(12) On May 31, 2001, Plaintiff was allegedly arrested for Criminal Contempt and Resisting Arrest and forcefully removed from her vehicle, causing injury to her arm and breaking her car window. Plaintiff states that the charge "was a retaliatory charge" for the April 2001 events and that both charges related to the April 18, 2001 incident.
(13) On July 21, 2001, Plaintiff was charged with possession of a forged instrument for allegedly forging a notice of appearance relating to the her appearances in court before Judge Axsmith, for the purpose of obtaining a driver's license. Plaintiff alleges that a Monroe County Grand Jury "dismissed" this charge.
A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Defendants first argue that many, if not all, of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed on the basis of res judicata, as she raised many of the same claims and presented many of the same facts against many of the same defendants in the
To determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to preclude litigation, the Court must determine whether the judgment in the previous action was: "(1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving the same parties or their privies, and (4) involving the same cause of action."
Further, Plaintiff's complaint in
The following identical events (while alleged in more or less detail in either suit) are alleged in both complaints (1) Plaintiff's arrest for AUO 3
Next, the Court must decide whether the remaining claims are sufficiently related such that they arise from the same "nucleus of operative fact," and are therefore barred by res judicata.
Plaintiff's remaining allegations can be viewed from two perspectives — (1) as a series of unlawful reprisals against the Plaintiff originating from the same organization with the shared intention of harassing and threatening the Plaintiff in response to confrontations that occurred with her for more than ten years; or (2) as separate instances of misconduct that, while numerous, are not related in time, space, origin or motivation — each involving different individuals, with different motivations. If viewed from the first perspective, it would seem that Plaintiff's allegations may be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as they consist of a series of connected events — some of which were pleaded in the first action and others which could have been pleaded in the first action — all occuring prior to the filing of the first action. In contrast, if viewed from the perspective that each event involved different individuals, at different times, motivated for different reasons, many of the allegations would not be barred by res judicata.
Viewing Plaintiffs complaint as a whole, the Court finds that it is more reasonable to view the events alleged in the complaint as separate instances of misconduct, because each factual event alleged occurred under vastly different circumstances. The arrests and/or issuances of traffic citations were effectuated by different individuals at different times for different reasons. For example, the arrests based on the complaints of her neighbors cannot reasonably be compared to the traffic citations she received for speeding or the parking violation that was issued while she was protesting outside of the NYPS barracks. Further, the alleged arrests and/or traffic stops and the alleged prosecutions occurred in different towns and rarely involved similar charges.
Accordingly, the Court does not find that it is appropriate to consider these events as a single transaction or series of transactions. The Court notes that Plaintiff's allegations that these arrests were connected in that they represent a pattern of reprisals by the NYSP are conclusory, and are not supported by the record. Plaintiff's claims for any coordinated conduct were dismissed more than once, and Plaintiff has not alleged how any of these events are connected factually. For example, Plaintiff has not alleged that the same officers were party to several similar arrests for similar lawful conduct. The Court also notes that several of Plaintiff's allegations of unlawful conduct, even read in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, are instances of individuals acting with the motivation of helping the Plaintiff — for example, courts attempting to lower charges or dismissing charges in the interests of justice without a trial. Accordingly, it is hard to reason that all of the actions of the defendants and their alleged "co-conspirators" were part of a larger plot to violate the Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
The only factual events which were not specifically asserted in the
Also, in both Complaints, Plaintiff details her arrest for Criminal Contempt on April 18, 2001 and the events which ensued afterward, which were connected to the April 2001 arrest. The second arrest for Criminal Contempt, as Plaintiff alleges, was connected to or arose out of the first arrest. And, as Plaintiff was aware of each instance she could have, and should have, asserted these factual allegations to support her claims of unlawful conduct in
The Court also emphasizes the proximity in time between both events and the April 2001 events which form the crux of the complaint in
Defendants also argue that most of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statue of limitations, having occurred more than three years
Here, the Court finds that it is prudent to revisit the decision of the Northern District of New York on the applicability of the continuing violation doctrine for several reasons. First, Judge Munson's application of the doctrine to the specific facts alleged in the complaint is minimal. Judge Munson spent most of the discussion of the doctrine determining whether it applied to cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than discussing the facts as alleged. Further, the Northern District transferred the case to this Court, in part, because it found that this Court would be better able to consider the effect of the
"Under the continuing violation doctrine, a timely charge with respect to a constitutional violation in furtherance of an infirm policy renders claims against other unlawful actions `taken pursuant to that policy timely, even if they would be untimely if standing alone.'"
Here, the factual allegations relate approximately 13 instances of alleged unlawful conduct. Not only are the events remarkably different from one another — occurring at different times, under different circumstances and involving different individuals — Plaintiff does not allege a non-conclusory factual connection between these separate instances of alleged misconduct. Further, as the Court has already pointed out, Plaintiff's allegations of a coordinated effort by the NYPS to "terrorize" and "harass" her, are conclusory, at best. Other than the allegations that the arrests, vehicle stops, and prosecutions occurred and were "unlawful" or "illegal," there are no allegations of fact that would seemingly connect any of the alleged events to each other or to an underlying, and invalid policy of the NYSP.
In a case remarkably similar to the case at bar, the Southern District of New York found that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to allegations of "varied police activity: (1) occurring over the course of fifteen years; (2) undertaken by several different officers; (3) occurring under the supervision of different town and department administrators; (4) involving vastly different circumstances; and (5) carried out pursuant to distinct policies or customs."
Thus, Plaintiff is foreclosed from bringing claims related to events that occurred prior to May 9, 2000. The majority of Plaintiff's complaint relates to events that occurred prior to May 9, 2000, and most of the events that occurred subsequently were raised in the
A review of the Third Amended Complaint reveals only the following action that is neither time barred nor barred by res judicata: On September 25, 2000, Plaintiff was stopped by Defendants Burdette and Klinkman and issued a ticket for driving to the left of pavement markings. (Plaintiff's Exhibit A at C-14.) While Plaintiff conclusively alleges that the Defendants unlawfully stopped her on this occasion, she fails to allege any non-conclusory facts in support of this allegation.
Other than the fact that the stop occurred and the fact that Plaintiff believes the stop was part of a larger plot to "victimize" her, she does not allege any non-conclusory facts to suggest that the stop was anything other than lawful.
There are simply no non-conclusory facts to plausibly suggest that the stop was unreasonable as that term is understood under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a constitutional or state law violation with respect to this stop.
Having found that most of Plaintiffs claims are either barred by res judicata or the statute of limitations; and having found that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a claim to relief based on the September 25, 2000 stop, the Court hereby grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
