UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GREGORY MILES BARTLETT, Plaintiff, 1:21-CV-9116 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL TRIBECA LENDING CORP; FRANKLIN UNDER

MORTGAGE ASSET TRUST 2009A, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: By order dated January 29, 2016, the court barred Plaintiff from filing any future civil action in this court regarding his 2007 state-court foreclosure action without first obtaining permission from the court to file. See Bartlett v. Tribeca Lending Corp., ECF 1:15-CV-6102, 11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2016). Plaintiff files this new pro se action seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and requesting permission to file this action in which he asks this Court to void a judgment issued on September 10, 2008, in his 2007 state-court foreclosure action. The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s request to file this action made pursuant to the court’s January 29, 2016 order in Bartlett, 1:15-CV-6102, denies that request because Plaintiff fails to show that this new action is a departure from his history of bringing vexatious and nonmeritorious litigation in this court concerning his 2007 state-court foreclosure action. Accordingly, the Court also denies Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP and dismisses this action without prejudice under the court’s January 29, 2016 order in Bartlett, 1:15-CV-6102. See Dorce v. City of New York,

, 101 (2d Cir. 2021) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from hearing cases that in effect are appeals from state court judgments, because the Supreme Court [of the United States] is the only federal court with jurisdiction over such cases.”). CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for permission to file this action, as well as his IFP application, and dismisses this action without prejudice under the court’s January 29, 2016 order in Bartlett v. Tribeca Lending Corp., ECF 1:15-CV-6102, 11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2016). The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that any appeal from this order

would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). Plaintiff has consented to electronic service of court documents. (ECF 3.) SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2021 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge