23-7415; 24-1299; 24-1546 Jean-Baptiste v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of December, two thousand twenty-four.

PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

Harold Jean-Baptiste,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 23-7415

United States Department of Justice, Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Christopher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Civil Process Clerk for the United States Attorney’s Office Southern District of New York,

Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________

Harold Jean-Baptiste,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 24-1299

United States Department of Justice, Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Christopher Wray, Civil Process Clerk for the United States Attorney’s Office,

Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________

In Re: Harold Jean-Baptiste,

-------------------------------------------------------

Harold Jean-Baptiste,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 24-1546

2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,

Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Harold Jean-Baptiste, pro se, Rosedale, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.

Appeal from a judgment and orders of the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of New York (Chen, J.) and a judgment and order of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Caproni, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgments and orders of the district

courts are AFFIRMED.

In these three appeals, which have been considered in tandem and

consolidated for disposition, pro se plaintiff-appellant Harold Jean-Baptiste

challenges the sua sponte dismissals of his complaints against the U.S.

Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and others in the

Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. In two cases, the district courts

3 dismissed Jean-Baptiste’s complaints sua sponte and entered leave-to-file

injunctions based on his pattern of frivolous filings. See generally Jean-Baptiste v.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 23-CV-6297 (PKC) (LB),

(E.D.N.Y. Oct.

10, 2023) (noting dismissal of the complaint and entering injunction); Jean-

Baptiste v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 24-CV-01152 (VEC),

(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2024) (dismissing complaint); Bar Order under

,

Jean-Baptiste v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 24-CV-01152 (VEC), ECF No. 8 (entering

injunction). In the third, the district court denied Jean-Baptiste’s motion to open

a new case because his proposed complaint was filed after the imposition of the

pre-filing injunction and deemed frivolous. Order, In re Jean-Baptiste, No. 23-

mc-02683-PKC, ECF No. 3 (denying permission to file complaint). We assume

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues

on appeal which we refer to only as necessary to explain our decision to

AFFIRM.

I. Dismissal of the Complaints

A district court has inherent authority to “dismiss a frivolous complaint

sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee.” Fitzgerald v.

4 First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp.,

(2d Cir. 2000) (per

curiam). “An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are

clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy;

or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Livingston v.

Adirondack Beverage Co.,

(2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness 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,

(1992).

The district courts did not abuse their discretion by dismissing two of Jean-

Baptiste’s complaints or otherwise err by denying Jean-Baptiste leave to proceed

on the third complaint. The complaints allege that FBI agents surveilled Jean-

Baptiste as he went about his daily life, contacted or posed as his romantic

partners, and attempted to kidnap or assassinate him on multiple occasions in

retaliation for his prior lawsuits and complaints. As evidence of this conspiracy,

Jean-Baptiste points to innocuous occurrences, such as the presence of a car

alongside him, a driver’s refusal to honk at another car, and others staring at him

5 in public. See Gallop v. Cheney,

, 368–69 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirming

dismissal of claims as frivolous where plaintiff alleged conspiracy of government

officials to commit terrorism but did not allege any facts demonstrating a

“consistent” or “plausible” theory). As for Jean-Baptiste’s allegation that the

FBI cancelled his food stamps in retaliation for filing multiple lawsuits, the

complaints plead no facts showing a connection between the FBI and the relevant

state agency.

Jean-Baptiste argues that the district court erred by failing to allow him an

opportunity to appear or respond before dismissing his complaint. Although

we have said that “dismissing a case without an opportunity to be heard is, at a

minimum bad practice,” Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp.,

(2d Cir. 2018), sua sponte dismissal can be permissible when it is “unmistakably

clear” that “the complaint lacks merit or is otherwise defective,” Snider v.

Melindez,

(2d Cir. 1999). Jean-Baptiste has a history of filing

similar lawsuits and we have previously affirmed dismissals of his claims as

factually frivolous. See, e.g., Jean-Baptiste v. Almonte Food Stream Corp., No. 23-

438,

, at *1 (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2023) (summary order) (affirming

6 dismissal of complaint alleging FBI conspiracy to poison Jean-Baptiste); Jean-

Baptiste v. Westside Donut Huntington Ventures LLC, No. 23-826-cv,

, at *1 (2d Cir. Nov. 20, 2023) (summary order) (same). Jean-Baptiste

was therefore constructively on notice that claims similar to those he has

unsuccessfully advanced in the past would likewise be vulnerable to dismissal

as frivolous. Under these circumstances, the district courts acted within their

discretion by dismissing the complaints sua sponte.

II. Imposition of Leave-to-File Injunctions

Jean-Baptiste also challenges the imposition of the leave-to-file injunctions

against him. We review for abuse of discretion. Gollomp v. Spitzer,

(2d Cir. 2009). As noted above, Jean-Baptiste has repeatedly filed

claims that courts have dismissed as factually frivolous. He continues to do so

despite multiple warnings that further frivolous litigation could result in

sanctions. When asked to show cause why an injunction should not be entered,

Jean-Baptiste reiterated many of the same frivolous allegations contained in his

complaints. Based on this history of vexatious and duplicative litigation, the

district courts did not abuse their discretion in imposing the pre-filing

7 injunctions. See Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc.,

, 24 (2d Cir. 1986).

Indeed, counting the three appeals we address here, Jean-Baptiste has filed

seven unsuccessful appeals in this Court that all relate in some way to the same

factually frivolous allegations of a government conspiracy against him. Jean-

Baptiste is warned that the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or clearly

frivolous appeals may result in the imposition of a leave-to-file sanction that

would likewise require him to obtain this Court’s permission before filing any

future appeals. See In re Martin-Trigona,

(2d Cir. 1993); Sassower

v. Sansverie,

, 10–11 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

* * *

We have considered Jean-Baptiste’s remaining arguments and find them

to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgments and orders of the

district courts.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

8