Ates v. Altiner

• Decision Date: 19 June 2020
• Docket Number: 20-CV-1477 (JMA)(AYS),20-CV-1479 (JMA)(AYS)
• Parties: MURAT ATES, Plaintiff, v. FERDAG DILAY ALTINER, STATE OF NEW YORK, ANDREW CRECCA, in his personal capacity and in his official capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, 10th Judicial District; PATRICK LEIS, III, in his personal capacity and in is official capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, 10th Judicial District; VICTORIA GUMBS-MOORE, in her personal capacity and in her official capacity as Justice of the Family Court of New York, 10th Judicial District, Suffolk County, NY; JANET DIFIORE, in her personal capacity and in her official capacity as the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of New York, ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, MARK C. DILLON, RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, BETSY BARROS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, COLLEEN DUFFY, SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, FRANCESA E. CONNOLLY in their personal capacities and in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, JOSEPH W. BELLUCK, PAUL B. HARDING, JODIE CORNGOLD, JOHN A. FALK, TAA GRAYS, LESLIE G. LEACH, ANGELA L. MAZZARELLI, ROBERT J. MILLER, MARVIN RAY RASKIN, AKASIA GARCIA YEBOAH in their personal capacities and in their official Capacities as members of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, VICTIMS INFORMATION BUREAU OF SUFFOLK (VIBS), CATHERINE DESANTO, PENNY SLOMOVITZ-GLASER, and LANCE SIMON, Defendants. MURAT ATES, Plaintiff, v. FERDAG DILAY ALTINER, TOURO COLLEGE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW CENTER, ANDREW CRECCA, in his personal capacity and in his official capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, 10th Judicial District, PATRICK LEIS, III, in his personal and in his official capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, 10th Judicial District, VICTORIA GUMBS-MOORE, in her personal capacity and in her official capacity as Justice of the Family Court of New York, 10th Judicial District, Suffolk County, NY, and VICTIMS INFORMATION BUREAU OF SUFFOLK COUNTY (VIBS), Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

MURAT ATES, Plaintiff, v. FERDAG DILAY ALTINER, STATE OF NEW YORK, ANDREW CRECCA,in his personal capacity and in his official capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of New York,

10^th Judicial District; PATRICK LEIS, III, in his personal capacity

and in is official capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of New York,

10^th Judicial District; VICTORIA GUMBS-MOORE, in her personal capacity

and in her official capacity as Justice of the Family Court of New York,

10^th Judicial District, Suffolk County, NY; JANET DIFIORE,

in her personal capacity and in her official capacity as the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of New York,

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA,

MARK C. DILLON, RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL,

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI,

BETSY BARROS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER,

PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, COLLEEN DUFFY, SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX,

SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, HECTOR D. LASALLE,

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, FRANCESA E. CONNOLLY

in their personal capacities and in their official capacities as Justices

of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department,

JOSEPH W. BELLUCK, PAUL B. HARDING, JODIE CORNGOLD, JOHN A. FALK,

TAA GRAYS, LESLIE G. LEACH, ANGELA L. MAZZARELLI, ROBERT J. MILLER,

MARVIN RAY RASKIN, AKASIA GARCIA YEBOAH

in their personal capacities and in their official Capacities as members

of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, VICTIMS INFORMATION BUREAU OF SUFFOLK (VIBS),

CATHERINE DESANTO, PENNY SLOMOVITZ-GLASER, and LANCE SIMON, Defendants.

MURAT ATES, Plaintiff, v. FERDAG DILAY ALTINER, TOURO COLLEGE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW CENTER,ANDREW CRECCA, in his personal capacity and in his official capacity

as Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, 10^th Judicial District, PATRICK LEIS, III,

in his personal and in his official capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of New York,

10^th Judicial District, VICTORIA GUMBS-MOORE, in her personal capacity

and in her official capacity as Justice of the Family Court of New York, 10^th Judicial District,

Suffolk County, NY, and VICTIMS INFORMATION BUREAU

OF SUFFOLK COUNTY (VIBS), Defendants.

20-CV-1477 (JMA)(AYS)

20-CV-1479 (JMA)(AYS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

June 19, 2020

For Online Publication Only

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

AZRACK, United States District Judge:

On March 16, 2020, pro se plaintiff Murat Ates ("plaintiff") filed two in forma pauperis complaints in this Court against several of the same defendants together with applications to proceed in forma pauperis. By Orders dated May 1, 2020, the Court denied plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and with leave to renew upon completion of the AO 239 Long Form In Forma Pauperis application ("Long Form"). On May 4, 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the case assigned docket number 20-CV-1477 and the Long Form application in each case.

For the reasons that follow, the Court grants plaintiff's requests to proceed in forma pauperis, consolidates the amended complaint with the complaint assigned docket number 20-1479 ("complaint II"), and directs that the case assigned docket number 20-CV-1479 be closed.All future filings shall be made only under docket number 20-1477(JMA)(AYS). Further, the amended complaint and complaint II are sua sponte dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Amended Complaint

Plaintiff's amended complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 245, 249, 1959 and 1961, is a rambling diatribe against his estranged wife, Ferdag Dilay Altiner ("Altiner"), the State of New York, the justices of the New York State Supreme and Family Court who presided over the underlying state court proceedings (Judges Andrew Crecca, Patrick Leis, III, and Victoria Gumbs-Moore), the Chief Justice of the New York State Court of Appeals Janet DiFiore; justices of the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department: Alan D. Scheinkman, William F. Mastro, Reinaldo E. Rivera, Mark C. Dillion, Leonard B. Austin, Ruth C. Balkin, John M. Leventhal, Cheryl E. Chambers, Sandra L. Sgroi, Betsy Barros, L. Priscilla Hall, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Linda Christopher, Paul Wooten, Joseph J. Maltese, Colleen Duffy, Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Sheri S. Roman, Jeffrey A. Cohen, Francesca E. Connolly, Hector D. LaSalle, and Angela G. Iannacci; members of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct: Joseph W. Belluck, Paul B. Harding, Jodie Corngold, John A. Falk, Taa Grays, Leslie G. Leach, Angela L. Mazzarelli, Robert J. Miller, Marvin Ray Raskin, and Akasia Garcia; the Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk; Catherine DeSanto; Lance Simon; and Penny Slomovitz-Glaser (collectively, "defendants").¹

Plaintiff generally complains that New York state "domestic relations laws and family laws" are unconstitutional. (Am. Compl. at 3.) The gravamen of the amended complaint is that plaintiff claims that he was treated unfairly during state court matrimonial and family court proceedings. Plaintiff's allegations "arise from 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1961, 1985 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959, 241, 245, 249 as against the defendants in their official capacities and from 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959, 241, 245, 249 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 as against the private parties." (Id. ¶ 37.)

For relief, plaintiff seeks, inter alia, the disqualification and impeachment of several judges, an order declaring that the New York State Family Court Act and Domestic Relations Laws §§ 236(B) and 240 are unconstitutional, and various other orders addressing what he perceives were instances of bias in his matrimonial and family court proceedings. (Id. at 24-25.) Plaintiff also seeks an order, inter alia, regarding custody of his children, alimony, and property and money he believes his former spouse owes him.

B. Complaint II

Like the amended complaint, complaint II is brought against Altiner, Judge Crecca, Judge Leis, Judge Gumbs-Moore, and VIBS. Complaint II also names Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center ("Touro") as a defendant. Plaintiff alleges that his claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 2000d(1)-(7) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 245, 249, 1961. (Compl. II at 2.) The allegations in complaint II are largely the same as those in the amended complaint. Indeed, plaintiff acknowledges that his allegations are the same as those set forth in the amended complaint for the first twelve pages of his fourteen-page submission. (Id. at 12.)

At paragraph 36, plaintiff begins to set forth the "Facts Pertaining to the Current Case." (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff alleges that judges from his matrimonial and family court proceedings causedhim to be denied admission to Touro. (Id. at ¶¶ 36-42.) As relief, he seeks, inter alia, damages of $17 billion and an order that Touro violated his constitutional rights. (Id. at 13.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Consolidation of the Amended Complaint and Complaint II

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, "[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). "The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether consolidation is appropriate." Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (2d Cir. 1990). Consolidation is appropriate in order to serve the interests of judicial economy. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Castillo, No. 09 Civ. 953 (CM), 2009 WL 1203942, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2009) ("Consolidation would further the goal of 'judicial economy' because discovery in each case is likely to be identical, motion practice and trial in the two cases would most likely cover the same facts and some identical issues of law."). Specifically, consolidation of cases with common questions of law or fact is favored "to avoid unnecessary costs or delay," Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1284, and to "expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion," Devlin v. Transp. Commc'n Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (internal citations omitted).

"The Second Circuit has long adhered to the first-filed doctrine in deciding which case to dismiss where there are competing litigations. Where there are several competing lawsuits, the first suit should have priority, absent the showing of balance of convenience or special circumstances giving priority to the second." Kellen Co. v. Calphalon Corp., 54 F. Supp. 2d 218, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted); accord Adamv. Jacobs, 950 F.2d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 1991); First City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Simmons, 878 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1989). The first-filed rule seeks to conserve judicial resources and avoid duplicative litigation. See Adam v. Jacobs, 950 F.2d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 1991); First City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 878 F.2d at 80; Kellen, 54 F. Supp. 2d at 221.

Here, the complaints filed by plaintiff allege deprivations of his constitutional rights by the defendants, several of whom are named in both complaints. Indeed, plaintiff alleges that the facts involved in each complaint are largely the same. Accordingly, the Court orders that plaintiff's complaints be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 into the first filed case, 20-CV-1477. The Clerk of Court is directed to: (1) consolidate these actions; and (2) mark Complaint II (20-CV-1479) closed. All future filings are to be docketed in only 20-CV-1477.

B. In Forma Pauperis Applications

Upon review of plaintiff's declarations in support of the applications to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that plaintiff is qualified to commence these actions without prepayment of the filing fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pa...