green
Positive treatment
15.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keren Sita v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Jordan Staley
City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir. 1997) (filing injunction may issue if numerous complaints filed are based on the same events).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Holyoke v. S.S.I.
Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69-70 (2d Cir. 1997); Horoshko v. Citibank, N.A., 373 F.3d 248, 250 (2d Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ates v. United States
City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (filing injunction may issue if numerous frivolous complaints are filed based on the same events); see also Yanping Xu v. Suffolk Cnty., No. 19-CV-1362, 2020 WL 3975471 , at *8 (E.D.N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P.
Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hermes of Paris, Inc. v. Swain
City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam); Doctor’s Assocs., LLC v. Tripathi, 794 F. App’x 91 , 93 (2d Cir. 2019).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P.
Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Farkash v. Five Star Travel Inc.
City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Newman v. Jewish Agency for Israel, No. 16-CV- 7593, 2017 WL 6628616 , at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Caldwell v. Pesce
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69-70 (2d Cir.1997); Horoshko v. Citibank N.A., 373 F.3d 248, 250 (2d Cir.2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Neshewat v. Salem
City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir.1997) (affirming injunction where the plaintiff had filed repeated lawsuits concerning the same nucleus of operative facts.); Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir.1986) (“Ultimately the question the court must answer is whether a litigant who has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties.”); Raffe v. John Doe, 619 F.Supp. 891, 898 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (Conner, J.) (enjoining litigant from filing future lawsuits when that litigant had a history of filing vexatious…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Iwachiw v. New York City Board of Elections
He “has [therefore] amply demonstrated that neither the lack of success of his actions nor the warnings of the district court will cause him to cease his abuse of the judicial process.” Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lacy v. Principi
City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir.1997) (affirming injunction where the plaintiff had filed repeated lawsuits concerning the same nucleus of operative facts); Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir.1986) (“Ultimately, the question the court must answer is whether a litigant who has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties.”); Raffe v. John Doe, 619 F.Supp. 891, 898 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (Conner, J.) (enjoining a litigant from fifing future lawsuits when that litigant had a history of fifing vexatio…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hoffenberg v. Hoffman & Pollok
(2×)
Enjoining a plaintiff from filing further lawsuits *540 is proper and necessary where plaintiff has been warned by the court before, threatened with sanctions if additional lawsuits are filed, does not abide by such warnings and the court finds that such behavior “demonstrate[s] that neither the lack of success of his actions nor the warnings of the district court will cause him to cease his abuse of the judicial process.” Malley, 112 F.3d at 69 (affirming injunction where plaintiff exhibited such behavior); see also Pentagen, 172 F.Supp.2d at 474 ; In re Martin-Trigona, 795 F.2d 9, 12 (2d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Malley v. New York City Board of Education
City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69-70 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam) (this action was required because “Malley has amply demonstrated that neither the lack of success of. his actions -nor the warnings of the district court will cause him to cease his abuse of the judicial process.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
100,000 Victim Families Note Holders Owners of Securities in Towers Fina[n]cial Corp. v. Schulte Roth & Zable
Bank, 1998 WL 587798 , at *1 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that if the Plaintiff exhibits a pattern of abusive filings in federal court, “the district court would be well within its discretion to impose a ‘leave to file’ requirement or such other sanction as it deems appropriate.” Id.); Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam) (upholding an injunction where Plaintiff had been previously warned that he could face such a sanction); Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir.1989) (warning appellant who filed six appeals in one year that if he continued…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
100,000 Victim Families v. Schulte Roth & Zable
Bank, 1998 WL 537798 , at *1 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that if the Plaintiff exhibits a pattern of abusive filings in federal court, "the district court would be well within its discretion to impose a `leave to file' requirement or such other sanction as it deems appropriate." Id. ); Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69,69 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam) (upholding an injunction where Plaintiff had been previously warned that he could face such a sanction); Sassower v. Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir.1989) (warning appellant who filed six appeals in one year that if he continued to abus…
discussed
Cited "see"
Horoshko v. Citibank
See Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir.1997); Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 , 24 (2d Cir.1986) (outlining five factors for district court to consider in determining whether to impose a filing injunction); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Horoshko v. Citibank, N.A.
See Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir.1997); Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 , 24 (2d Cir.1986) (outlining five factors for district court to consider in determining whether to impose a filing injunction); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pentagen Technologies International Ltd. v. United States
See Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69 (2d Cir.1997) (finding an injunction appropriate where the plaintiff persisted in spite of adverse judgments in frivolous and repetitive litigation).
discussed
Cited "see"
Murray v. Deer Park Union Free School District
See Malley v. New York City Bd. of Education, 112 F.3d 69, 69 (1997) (affirming imposition of injunction against future filings in light of litigant’s “persistence in pursuing the same meritless claims wherever his papers are accepted by a clerk of court”); Maduakolam v. Columbia Univ., 866 F.2d 53 , 56 (2d Cir.1989) (noting that Rule 11 sanctions can be applied to pro se litigants, while their status as “untutored in the law” can be taken into account).
discussed
Cited "see"
Coan v. Peia (In Re Peia)
Id.; see Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69 (2d Cir.1997) (vexatious litigant properly enjoined from filing actions after being warned twice that further filings of repetitive *220 actions might result in sanctions like injunction under review).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Avent v. Platinum Plus Auto Protection
Mar. 31, 2021); see also Malley, 112 F.3d at 69 (affirming a filing injunction where plaintiff had filed five complaints based on the same underlying facts).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Davey v. Dolan
Dec.11, 1991) (citing cases); see also Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam) (affirming injunction issued to plaintiff who continually filed re *756 petitive actions); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 , 1261-62 (2d Cir.1984) (citing In re Hartford Textile Corp., 659 F.2d 299, 305 (2d Cir.1981) (“The United States Courts are not powerless to protect the public, including litigants ... from the depredations of those ... who abuse the process of the Courts to harass and annoy others with meritless, frivolous, vexatious or repetitive ... proceedings.”)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Iwachiw v. NYC Board of Elections
A district court may issue a filing injunction when “a plaintiff abuse[s] the process of the Courts to harass and annoy others with meritless, frivolous, vexatious or repetitive ... proceedings.” Id. (internal quotations & citations omitted); see also Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam) (filing injunction may issue if numerous complaints filed are based on the same events).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Iwachiw v. NYC Brd of Education
A district court may issue a filing injunction when “a plaintiff abusefs] the process of the Courts to harass and annoy others with meritless, frivolous, vexatious or repetitive ... proceedings.” Id. (internal quotations & citations omitted); see also Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam) (filing injunction may issue if numerous complaints filed are based on the same events).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peter J. MALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; City of New York, Defendants-Appellees
v.
NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; City of New York, Defendants-Appellees
1186, Docket 96-9013.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 23, 1997.
Peter J. Malley, pro se, Clifton, New Jersey, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Stuart D. Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of New York, New York City, for Defendants-Appellees.
Feinberg, Winter, Parker.
Cited by 38 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
Peter Malley appeals from Judge Keenan’s order denying relief under Rule 60(b), Fed. R.Civ.P., from an injunction prohibiting appellant from filing future complaints in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining permission from a judge of that court. Malley has filed repetitive actions concerning his discharge as a New York City school teacher and revocation of his teaching license. These actions have just as repetitively been dismissed on statute of limitations and res judicata grounds. Malley was warned after the third such action that further such complaints might result in sanctions like the injunction now under review. Undeterred, Malley filed a fourth such complaint that was dismissed with yet another warning. Malley then filed the instant matter, dismissed again for the usual reasons, but this time the district court imposed the injunction from which Malley now appeals.
Malley has amply demonstrated that neither the lack of success of his actions nor the warnings of the district court will cause him to cease his abuse of the judicial process. We therefore affirm the injunction as granted. See In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir.1984) (injunction is appropriate where plaintiff “abuse[s] the process of the Courts to harass and annoy others with meritless, frivolous, vexatious or repetitive ... proceedings” (internal quotation and citation marks omitted)).
Appellees advise us that Malley has filed two other actions of the same nature in the District of New Jersey, although they were subsequently withdrawn. They also inform us that Malley, faced with the injunction issued in the instant ease, has now filed yet another repetitious action, but this time in the Eastern District of New York. They ask us to broaden the injunction beyond the Southern District to all federal courts. We see no barrier to a broader injunction in light of the warnings previously issued to Malley and of his persistence in pursuing the same meritless claims wherever his papers are accepted by a clerk of court. See id. at 1262 (approving injunction restricting new actions in all federal courts). However, we believe that such an order should be considered and[*70] fashioned in the first instance by the district court. We therefore remand the request to broaden the injunction.
Affirmed in part and remanded in part.