Ates v. United States

• Decision Date: 22 October 2020
• Docket Number: 20-CV-4334(JS)(AYS)
• Parties: MURAT ATES, a free sovereign living soul, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, STATE OF NEW YORK, GARY R. BROWN, in his personal capacity and in his official capacity as a Justice of Federal Court; JOAN M. AZRACK, in her personal capacity and in her official capacity as a Justice of Federal Court; 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 capacity 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; VICTIMS INFORMATION BUREAU OF SUFFOLK (VIBS); and FERDAG DILAY ALTINER, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

MURAT ATES, a free sovereign living soul, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, STATE OF NEW YORK, GARY R. BROWN,in his personal capacity and in his official capacity asa Justice of Federal Court; JOAN M. AZRACK,in her personal capacity and in her official capacity asa Justice of Federal Court; TOURO COLLEGE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW CENTER;ANDREW CRECCA, in his personal capacity and in his official capacity asJustice of the Supreme Court of New York, 10th Judicial District;PATRICK LEIS, III, in his personal capacity and in his officialcapacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of New York,10th Judicial District; VICTORIA GUMBS-MOORE, in her personal capacityand in her official capacity as Justice of the Family Court of New York,10th Judicial District; VICTIMS INFORMATION BUREAU OF SUFFOLK (VIBS);and FERDAG DILAY ALTINER, Defendants.

20-CV-4334(JS)(AYS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

October 22, 2020

MEMORANDUM & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

APPEARANCES

For Plaintiff:

Murat Ates, prose¹

(631) 790-1080

muratates.ny@gmail.com

For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:

Murat Ates ("Plaintiff") has initiated five frivolous actions in this District, inclusive of this Action, since March 13, 2020. See Ates v. Altiner, No. 20-CV-1477 (Azrack, J.) ("Ates I"); Ates v. Altiner, No. 20-CV-1479 (Azrack, J.) ("Ates II"); Ates v. Azrack, No. 20-CV-3590 (Brown, J.) ("Ates III"); and Ates v. Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, No. 20-CV-3729 (Brown, J.) ("Ates IV"). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, the Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and leave to amend is DENIED as futile. Plaintiff is further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court should not enter a filing injunction barring Plaintiff from filing a new action in this Court without permission, as set forth below.

BACKGROUND

I. Plaintiff's Litigation History in this Court

On March 13, 2020, Plaintiff commenced Ates I by filing a complaint against (1) his estranged wife Ferdag Dilay Altiner ("Altiner"); (2) the State of New York; (3) the justices of the New York State Supreme Court and Family Court who presided over the underlying state court proceedings;² (3) Judge Janet DiFiore,Chief Justice of the New York State Court of Appeals; (4) the justices of the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department;³ (5) the members of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct;⁴ (6) the Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk ("VIBS"); (7) Catherine DeSanto; (8) Lance Simon; and (9) Penny Slomovitz-Glaser. (Ates I, Compl., D.E. 1.) Plaintiff alleged that New York state domestic relation laws and family laws are unconstitutional and that he was treated unfairly during state court matrimonial and family court proceedings. (See generally Ates I, Compl.) On May 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed an updated AO 239 in forma pauperis ("IFP") application and an Amended Complaint. (See Ates I, Am. Compl., D.E. 12; IFP Mot., D.E. 13.) Plaintiff sought to disqualify and impeach several state court judges, a declaration that the New York State Family Court Act and certain Domestic Relations Laws are unconstitutional, and other orders addressing perceived instances of bias in the underlying matrimonial and family court proceedings. Plaintiff alsorequested an order regarding custody of his children, alimony, as well as property and money he believes Altiner owed him.

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff commenced Ates II by filing a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Ates II, Compl., D.E. 1; IFP Mot., D.E. 2.) There, Plaintiff named Altiner, Judge Crecca, Judge Leis, Judge Gumbs-Moore, VIBS, and Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center ("Touro") as defendants. The allegations were substantially similar to those asserted in Ates I except that in Ates II, Plaintiff alleged that the judges who presided over his matrimonial and family court proceedings caused Touro to deny him admission to the law school. (Ates II, Compl. ¶¶ 36-42.) Plaintiff sought, among other things, $17 billion in damages and a declaration that Touro violated his constitutional rights. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.)

On June 19, 2020, Judge Joan M. Azrack issued an order dismissing the complaints in both Ates I and Ates II. (See Ates I, June 19, 2020 Order, D.E. 17; Ates II, June 19, 2020 Order, D.E. 9.) Judge Azrack granted Plaintiff's requests to proceed in forma pauperis, consolidated the Amended Complaint in Ates I with the Complaint in Ates II, and dismissed both actions without prejudice. Specifically, Judge Azrack dismissed Plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter pursuant to the domestic relations exception finding that Plaintiff sought "to challenge rulings made during the underlying state court matrimonial actionand child custody proceedings." (Ates I, June 19, 2020 Order at 8-11.)⁵ Judge Azrack next held that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they asked the Court to "review and reject the state court decisions awarding custody of his children to his former spouse, child support and alimony payments, and the entry of orders of protection." (Id. at 11-13.) Judge Azrack denied leave to amend and stated "Plaintiff may pursue any valid state law claims that he may have against the defendants in state court." (Id. at 13-14.)

On or around August 6, 2020, Plaintiff initiated Ates III by filing a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Ates III, Compl. D.E. 1; IFP Mot., D.E. 4.) There, Plaintiff asserted many of the same claims alleged in Ates I and named Judge Azrack as a defendant. (See Ates III, Compl.) On or around August 14, 2020, Plaintiff commenced Ates IV by filing a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Ates IV, Compl., D.E. 1; IFP Mot., D.E. 2.) The Ates IV complaint asserted many of the same claims alleged in Ates II and named Judge Azrack as a defendant. (See Ates IV, Compl.) On August 20, 2020, Judge Gary R. Brown entered Electronic Orders in both Ates III and Ates IV granting Plaintiff's applications to proceed in formapauperis and sua sponte dismissing the actions with prejudice as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).⁶ (See Ates III, Aug. 20, 2020 Elec. Order (citing Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1999) and Miller v. Doe, No. 20-CV-0930, 2020 WL 4616322, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2020)).

II. This Action⁷

Plaintiff commenced this Action on or around September 15, 2020 by filing a Complaint against the United States, the State of New York, Judge Brown, Judge Azrack, Touro, Judge Crecca, Judge Leis, Judge Gumbs-Moore, VIBS, and Altiner (collectively, "Defendants"). (Compl., D.E. 1.) The Complaint asserts "violations of certain protections guaranteed to him by the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution" against the "judges in the Supreme Court of New York and Family Court of New York" and "the private defendants" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1961, 1985, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1964, 241, 245, and 249, a "Bivens Action" against Judge Azrack and Judge Brown, and claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2000d against Touro and VIBS. (See Compl. at 2, ¶ II.) Plaintiff alleges that he is"homeless (as a result of Defendants' hate crimes, religious and racial discrimination and crimes committed under the color of law)," is a "Free Sovereign Living Soul," and is attending Quinnipiac University School of Law. (Compl. at 2.) Here, too, Plaintiff asserts claims regarding the constitutionality and fairness of the underlying state court proceedings and arising out of the denial of his admission to Touro. (See generally Compl.) He also asserts that Judge Azrack and Judge Brown deliberately, and in bad faith, "dismissed [his] federal lawsuit[s]" and:

frivolously and deliberately prevented the homeless & penniless Plaintiff from pursuing Appeals of their illegal, unconstitutional dismissals of the Plaintiff Civil Rights Claims by unconstitutionally denying the Plaintiff his Rights to fair trial, equal protection of laws and due process, also denying the Plaintiff his right to pursue redress of the real, proven injuries caused by the illegal acts of the defendants using Unconstitutional Federal Codes 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (a)(3), (e)(2)(B)(i)

(Compl. at 6, ¶ 12-14.) Plaintiff further alleges that the United States:

deliberately and frivolously operates a Racketeering Operation through its Judiciary and protects such Racketeering Operation from the Constitutional penalties by granting the Same Racketeering Organization rights to make case laws and statutes that immunizes the Racket from the Constitution. UNITED STATES facilitates the RACKET to dismiss complaints against itself by providing -- endless and infinitely many -- Unconstitutional, arbitrary and baseless codes, statutes or case law as a justification for dismissal

(Compl. at 7, ¶ 15.) Plaintiff seeks, among other things, a declaration that:

(1) ALL defendants as co-conspirators and acco[]mplices to UNITE[D] STATES, committed an armed robbery, robbing the Plaintiff of his property and assets valued at seventeen billion dollars;

***

(5) [the] Domestic Relations Laws and Family Court Acts of ALL 50 STATES [are] Unconstitutional;

(6) [the] Character and Fitness assessments of ANY educational or professional organization receiving Federal Funds as a part of their admission process is UNCONSTITUIONAL;

(7) 28 U.S.C. § 1915 [is] UNCONSTITUTIONAL;

(8) [the] "Domestic Relations Exception[,]" "Rooker/Feldman Doctrine" and the "Plausability" standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal are UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and

***

(10) Free Sovereign People and Common Law Courts formed by Free Sovereign People have exclusive jurisdiction on ANY complaint against ANY Governmental Entity.

(Compl. at 7-8, ¶¶ 1-11.)

DISCUSSION

I. In Forma Pauperis Application

Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (IFP Mot., D.E. 1-1.) Upon review of the...