Court Opinion

ID: 9900808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 16:00:48.365594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:18.325944
License: Public Domain

23-826-cv
    Jean-Baptiste v. Westside Donut Huntington Ventures LLC

                           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 TO 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 20th day of November, two thousand twenty-three.

    PRESENT:
                RICHARD C. WESLEY,
                DENNY CHIN,
                JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
                      Circuit Judges.
    _____________________________________

    Harold Jean-Baptiste,

                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                      v.                                             23-826-cv

    Westside Donut Huntington Ventures LLC,

                               Defendant-Appellee.

    _____________________________________

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

    FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:                                   Farah Khakee, Brooks &
                                                              Berne PLLC, Elmsford, NY.
       Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New

York (Chen, J.).

       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

       Plaintiff-Appellant Harold Jean-Baptiste, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant-Appellee

Westside Donut Huntington Ventures LLC, the operator of a Long 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
                                                 2
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, 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 “unmistakably 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

                                                 3
alleged that a grocery store colluded with the FBI, as factually frivolous. 1 See Jean-Baptiste v.

Almonte Stream Food 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:
                                                   Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

1
   We note that the district court recently imposed a filing injunction on Jean-Baptiste in another lawsuit,
in which the district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint. Jean-Baptiste v. U.S. 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 subsequently 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) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).

                                                      4