`
`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.1 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).
`
`* * *
`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 WL 17540544, 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 Plaintiffs 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 plaintiff s 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 Plaintiff’s 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.
`
`Is/ Pamela K. Chen
`Pamela K. Chen
`United States District Judge
`
`Dated: April 27, 2023
`Brooklyn, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT
`Supreme Court
`PRESS
`PRESS
`
`