APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Opinions and Orders
`Summary Order, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`Second Circuit (November 20, 2023)..........
`
`Memorandum and Order, U.S. District Court
`for the Eastern District of New York
`(April 27, 2023)..........................................
`
`la
`
`5a
`
`
`
`Opinions and Orders
`Summary Order, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`Second Circuit (November 20, 2023)..........
`
`Memorandum and Order, U.S. District Court
`for the Eastern District of New York
`(April 27, 2023)..........................................
`
`la
`
`5a
`
`
`
`App.la
`
`SUMMARY ORDER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`(NOVEMBER 20, 2023)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`
`HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`WESTSIDE DONUT
`HUNTINGTON VENTURES LLC,
`
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`No. 23-826-cv
`Appeal from a judgment of the United States
`District Court for the Eastern District of
`New York (Chen, J.).
`Before: Richard C. WESLEY, Denny CHIN,
`Joseph F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges.
`
`SUMMARY ORDER
`UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY
`ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the
`judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
`Plaintiff-Appellant Harold Jean-Baptiste, proceed
`ing pro se, sued Defendant-Appellee Westside Donut
`Huntington Ventures LLC, the operator of a Long
`
`
`
`App.2a
`
`Island Dunkin’ Donuts, for allegedly serving him
`adulterated food on October 10, 2022, in an attempt to
`poison him in retaliation for a case he filed in the
`District of Columbia. He paid the filing fee. On April
`27, 2023, the district court sua sponte dismissed his
`Amended Complaint as frivolous. See Jean-Baptiste v.
`Westside Donut Huntington Ventures LLC, No. 23-CV-
`2308 (PKC) (LB), 2023 WL 3126192 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27,
`2023). In his brief on appeal, which we construe
`liberally, see Nowakowski v. New York, 835 F.3d 210,
`215 (2d Cir. 2016), Jean-Baptiste challenges the district
`court’s sua sponte dismissal of his Amended Complaint
`because it did not provide him with advance notice or
`an opportunity to be heard. We assume the parties’
`familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history,
`and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as
`necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
`A district court has the inherent authority to
`dismiss a complaint sua sponte, even when the plaintiff
`has paid the filing fee, when it is clear that the claims
`are frivolous. See Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St.
`Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (per
`curiam); Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16—17 (2d Cir.
`1995) (per curiam). Although we have not yet decided
`whether we review a district court’s exercise of this
`inherent authority de novo or for abuse of discretion,
`we need not do so here because the district court’s
`decision “easily passes muster under the more rigorous
`de novo review.” Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 364 n.2.
`As the district court noted, Jean-Baptiste has
`filed numerous complaints in various courts over the
`years, involving alleged government conspiracies to
`poison his food or harm him in other ways, all of which
`have been dismissed. Jean-Baptiste, 2023 WL 3126192,
`
`
`
`App.3a
`
`at *1 (collecting cases). At least one of these lawsuits,
`which was dismissed as frivolous, arose out of the
`same alleged poisoning incident at a Long Island
`Dunkin’ Donuts that is the subject of the instant
`lawsuit; he did not appeal that dismissal. See Mem.
`and Order at 1, Jean-Baptiste v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,
`No. 22-CV-6718 (PKC) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2022),
`ECF No. 15 (dismissing as frivolous Jean-Baptiste’s
`claims that “on October 10, 2022, the FBI ordered a
`Dunkin’ Donuts employee to poison him with a toxic
`substance”).
`At its core, the Amended Complaint here seeks to
`relitigate virtually identical claims, and it is “unmis
`takably clear” that those claims ‘lack[ ] merit.” Snider
`v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108, 113 (2d Cir. 1999). Under
`such circumstances, the district court properly dismissed
`the Amended Complaint sua sponte as duplicative and
`frivolous, without providing notice and an opportunity
`to be heard. See Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 363—64 (holding
`that sua sponte dismissal of a complaint as frivolous
`was proper where the complaint merely repeated
`allegations that were contained in two prior federal
`actions that had been dismissed); see also Ethridge v.
`Bell, 49 F.4th 674, 683 (2d Cir. 2022) (acknowledging
`that due process may be satisfied in rare instances by
`something other than formal notice where “notice serves
`little purpose”). Indeed, we recently reached the same
`conclusion in affirming the sua sponte dismissal of a
`lawsuit filed by Jean-Baptiste, in which he alleged
`that a grocery store colluded with the FBI, as factually
`frivolous.l See Jean-Baptiste v. Almonte Stream Food
`
`1 We note that the district court recently imposed a filing injunc
`tion on Jean-Baptiste in another lawsuit, in which the district
`court sua sponte dismissed the complaint. Jean-Baptiste v. U.S.
`
`
`
`App.4a
`
`Corp., No. 23-438,2023 WL 7293777, at *1 (2d Cir. Nov.
`6, 2023) (summary order).
`
`ic ic ic
`We have considered Jean-Baptiste’s remaining
`arguments and find them to be without merit. 2
`Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
`court.
`
`FOR THE COURT:
`
`/s/ Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
`Clerk of Court
`
`Dep’t of Just., No. 23-CV-6297 (PKC) (LB), 2023 WL 6587958, at
`*1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2023). In doing so, the district court
`observed that Jean-Baptiste has “brought at least nine other
`similar cases in this Court and others, all of which were sub
`sequently dismissed, with the majority being deemed frivolous,”
`and that, in response to the court’s order to show cause, Jean-
`Baptiste continued to make frivolous allegations and failed to
`provide a compelling justification for why the injunction should
`not be imposed. Id. Jean-Baptiste has appealed that decision.
`2 To the extent Jean-Baptiste argues that the district court was
`biased against him, that argument is entirely without merit. The
`district court’s adverse ruling does not constitute evidence of bias
`and Jean-Baptiste points to nothing in the record to suggest any
`such bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)
`(“[Jjudicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for
`a bias or partiality motion.”).
`
`
`
`App.5a
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`(APRIL 27, 2023)
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WESTSIDE DONUT
`HUNTINGTON VENTURES LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`No. 23-CV-2308 (PKC) (LB)
`Before: Pamela K. CHEN,
`United States District Judge.
`
`MEMORANDUM & ORDER
`PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge
`On March 29, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Harold Jean-
`Baptiste filed a Complaint under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C.
`§§ 1983 and 1985. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff paid the required
`filing fee. (Dkt. 2.) On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an
`Amended Complaint, which appears to be the same
`document as the original Complaint. (Dkt. 6.) For the
`
`
`
`App.6a
`
`reasons discussed below, the instant action is dismissed
`as frivolous.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Plaintiff brings this action against Westside Donut
`Huntington Ventures LLC, doing business as Dunkin
`Donuts in Huntington Station, New York, alleging
`that on October 10, 2022, a Dunkin Donuts employee
`“was instructed to prepare a special order in [a] prep
`bag for the plaintiff with a tampered food substance [,]”
`causing him to become sick and go to an emergency
`room at Long Island Jewish Hospital. (Am. Compl.,
`Dkt. 6, at 5.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and
`declaratory relief. (Id. at 9.)
`Plaintiff has brought claims for the same October
`10th incident in at least two other actions that were
`dismissed as frivolous. See Jean-Baptiste v. U.S. Dep’t
`of Just., No. 22-CV-8937 (LTS), 2022 WL17540544, at
`*1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2022) (dismissing Plaintiffs
`claims that defendants “caused him to become sick at
`a Dunkin Donuts restaurant in Huntington Station”
`on October 10, 2022, which resulted in him being sent
`to Long Island Jewish Hospital); Jean-Baptiste v. U.S.
`Dep’t of Just., No. 22-CV-6718 (PKC) (LB), (E.D.N.Y.
`Dec. 8, 2022) (dismissing Plaintiff’s claims that the
`FBI ordered a Dunkin Donuts employee to poison him
`with a toxic substance on October 10, 2022). Indeed,
`Plaintiff has filed numerous cases with claims that
`revolve around government conspiracies to poison his
`food or harm him in other ways. See Jean-Baptiste v.
`Almonte Stream Food Corp., No. 23-CV-1384 (PKC)
`(LB), 2023 WL 2587668, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21,
`2023) (alleging that Key Food Supermarket in Valley
`Stream, New York conspired with an FBI Special Agent
`
`
`
`App.7a
`
`and placed a toxic substance on his food causing him
`to go to an emergency room); see also Jean-Baptiste v.
`U.S. Dep’t of Just., No. 22-CV-1861, 2022 WL 3027010,
`at *1 (D.D.C. June 24, 2022) (alleging that FBI agents
`tried to kidnap him while out on a walk).l All of these
`cases have been dismissed.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`At the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the
`Court must assume the truth of “all well-pleaded,
`nonconclusory factual allegations” in the complaint.
`Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111,
`123 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`662 (2009)). A complaint must plead sufficient facts to
`“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
`It is axiomatic that pro se complaints are held to less
`stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys
`and the Court is required to read the plaintiffs pro se
`complaint liberally and interpret it as raising the
`strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus,
`551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-
`10 (1980); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537
`F.3d 185,191-93 (2d Cir. 2008). Regardless of whether
`a plaintiff has paid the filing fee, a district court has
`the inherent authority to dismiss a case, sua sponte, if
`it determines that the action is frivolous or the court
`lacks jurisdiction over the matter. See Frein v. Pelosi,
`No. 22-1063, 2023 WL 2530453, at *2 (2d Cir. Mar. 16,
`
`1 See also Jean-Baptiste v. U.S. Dept, of Just., No. 22-CV-8318
`(LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2022); Jean-Baptiste v. U.S. Dept, of
`Just., No. 22-CV-1420 (D.D.C. May 18, 2022); Jean-Baptiste v.
`U.S. Dept, of Just., No. 22-CV-897 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2022); Jean-
`Baptiste v. U.S. Dept, of Just., 21-CV-2221 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2021).
`
`
`
`App.8a
`
`2023) (citing Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants
`Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000)).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`I. Plaintiffs Allegations are Frivolous
`Plaintiffs allegations, even under the very liberal
`reading afforded to pro se pleadings (and even if Plaintiff
`believes them to be true), can only be described as
`frivolous and “clearly baseless.” Gallop v. Cheney, 642
`F.3d 364, 368 (2d Cir. 2011) (“A court may dismiss a
`claim as ‘factually frivolous’ if the sufficiently well-
`pleaded facts are ‘clearly baseless’—that is, they are
`‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ or ‘delusional.’”) (citation omitted).
`“A factual frivolousness finding is appropriate when
`the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
`the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
`noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton
`v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25-26 (1992).
`Given the implausibility of Plaintiffs allegations,
`the action cannot proceed. Stone v. Austin, No. 21-CV-
`4822 (JMA) (ST), 2021 WL 4443733, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.
`Sept. 28, 2021) (dismissing fee-paid action as frivolous
`because it lacked a basis in law or fact). And further,
`given that Plaintiff already made substantially the
`same allegations in two other cases that the Court has
`dismissed, the current Amended Complaint is duplica
`tive and frivolous.
`II. Leave to Amend
`The Second Circuit has held that leave to replead
`should be liberally granted to pro se litigants. See
`Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 140 (2d
`Cir. 2013) (“[A] pro se complaint generally should not
`
`
`
`App.9a
`
`be dismissed without granting the plaintiff leave to
`amend at least once[.]”). However, this principle applies
`when “a liberal reading of the complaint gives any
`indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Chavis
`v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation
`omitted). Here, granting Plaintiff leave to amend would
`be futile—especially given Plaintiff’s prior filing of two
`other complaints based on the same allegations, both
`of which have been dismissed. Frein, 2023 WL 2530453,
`at *2 (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d
`Cir. 2000) (a court does not need to give leave to
`amend where “the problem with [the plaintiffs]
`causes of action is substantive” and “better pleading
`will not cure it.”)).
`FILING INJUNCTION
`Plaintiff has been warned in previous orders2
`that “[i]f a litigant has a history of filing vexatious,
`harassing or duplicative lawsuits, courts may impose
`sanctions, including restrictions on future access to
`the judicial system.” Hong Mai Sa, 406 F.3d at 158
`(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lau v.
`Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). Unfor
`tunately, Plaintiff has failed to heed the Court’s
`warnings. Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW
`CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
`Order why he should not be enjoined from filing any
`further actions in this Court without leave to file.
`
`2 See Almonte Stream Food Corp., 2023 WL 2587668, at *2
`(“Plaintiff is again strongly warned that this Court will not
`tolerate frivolous litigation and if he continues to file patently
`frivolous complaints, the Court ‘may impose sanctions, including
`restrictions on future access to the judicial system.”) (quoting
`Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
`App.lOa
`
`CONCLUSION
`Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is dismissed
`as frivolous. Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 362. Plaintiff is
`ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14)
`days of the entry of this Order why he should not be
`enjoined from filing any further actions in this Court
`without leave to file. Although Plaintiff paid the filing
`fee to bring the action, the Court certifies pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be
`taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis
`status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge
`v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`/si Pamela K. Chen
`Pamela K. Chen
`United States District Judge
`
`Dated: April 27, 2023
`Brooklyn, New York
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
