Hoffenberg v. Marie, 11-1268

• Decision Date: 09 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 11-1268,11-1268
• Parties: STEVEN JUDE HOFFENBERG, acting in (7) Seven, TFC, SJH, restitution court ordered multi Billion dollar SJH Constructive Trust, that must repay state pension funds, including over 200,000 victims securities at, TOWERS INVESTORS DOT COM VICTIMS, Appellant v. JUDGE RENEE MARIE BUMB NAMED Defendant, in prospective injunctive relief, in egregious prejudice against the plaintiff, to favor the following defendant retaliation cover up, unconstitutional ongoing bivens acts, by DONNA ZICKEFOOSE; JEFF GRONDOLSKY; RICHARD HERBIK; TARA MORAN; ROBIN HOOD; MD SULAYMAN; MD JOHN CHUNG, with other unnamed BOP staff all names in their individual capacities
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

STEVEN JUDE HOFFENBERG, acting in (7) Seven, TFC, SJH,

restitution court ordered multi Billion dollar SJH Constructive Trust,

that must repay state pension funds, including over 200,000 victims securities at,

TOWERS INVESTORS DOT COM VICTIMS, Appellant

v.JUDGE RENEE MARIE BUMB NAMED Defendant, in prospective injunctive relief,

in egregious prejudice against the plaintiff, to favor the following defendant retaliation cover up,

unconstitutional ongoing bivens acts, by DONNA ZICKEFOOSE; JEFF GRONDOLSKY;

RICHARD HERBIK; TARA MORAN; ROBIN HOOD; MD SULAYMAN; MD JOHN CHUNG,

with other unnamed BOP staff all names in their individual capacities

No. 11-1268

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Opinion filed: June 9, 2011

CLD-193

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

(Amended pursuant to Clerk's Order dated 3/10/2011)

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-04784)

District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 19, 2011

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES AND SMITH, Circuit Judges

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Steven Jude Hoffenberg, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the District Court's sua sponte dismissal with prejudice of his fourth amended complaint. The District Court also imposed limitations upon Hoffenberg's right to file future civil actions in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm the dismissal of the fourth amended complaint, but we will vacate the filing restrictions and remand for further proceedings on that issue.

I.

The District Court set forth the background in painstaking detail in its final Memorandum Opinion. See Docket # 60. We will summarize the background as relevant to our consideration of the issues before this Court. Hoffenberg is presently confined at FCI-Fort Dix in New Jersey, where he is serving a twenty-year sentence imposed by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1997 following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to violate the securities laws and other offenses. See Hoffenberg v. United States, 436 F. Supp. 2d 609, 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Hoffenberg was also ordered to pay a $1 million fine and approximately $475 million in restitution. Id.

Hoffenberg commenced the present suit by filing a 371-paragraph complaint, along with exhibits, in which he purported to assert claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against four prison officials (Grondolsky, Harbik, Hood, and Dr. Sulayman). The District Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperisand dismissed the complaint sua sponte for failure to comply with Rules 8, 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court noted that "[t]he allegations in the Complaint span from access-to-the-courts claims to medical claims, to claims based on Plaintiff's correctional institution's financial responsibility program, to claims based on the alleged obstruction of Plaintiff's calls to - and meetings with - his attorneys[.] Moreover, the Complaint is laden with conclusory statements, and Plaintiffs allegations frequently fail to state any personal involvement of many Defendants[.]" Docket # 2 at ¶ 4. In dismissing with leave to amend, the District Court explained at length the federal pleading requirements, and it directed its Clerk to provide Hoffenberg with a blank civil complaint form to guide his filing of a conforming amended complaint.

Hoffenberg responded by filing motions for "meaningful court access," "declaratory relief," and "to consolidate." The District Court denied these motions, observing that any claim for relief must be raised in an amended complaint, and it extended the time for Hoffenberg to amend. Hoffenberg then filed a purported first amended complaint, which was merely a photocopy of the original complaint with handwritten amendments and notations, including claims against a new defendant (Morgan). Hoffenberg also submitted various motions.

The District Court dismissed the first amended complaint without prejudice, again citing Hoffenberg's failure to plead in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Assuming that Hoffenberg "simply failed to understand -- rather than consciously electedto ignore -- the Court's prior guidance," Docket #18 at ¶ 9, the District Court directed Hoffenberg to submit a clear and concise second amended complaint.¹

Hoffenberg filed a second amended complaint consisting of 191 paragraphs, plus exhibits, again purporting to assert Bivens claims. The District Court dismissed the pleading for failure to comply with Rules 8, 18 and 20, finding the document "incomprehensible" and noting that it could not "distill with any degree of clarity the alleged facts in the 100 page complaint."² Docket # 23 at ¶¶ 7-8. Rather than face the prospect that Hoffenberg would file yet another non-conforming amendment, the District Court directed him to submit a list of the legal claims that he wished to assert along with a brief description of the factual allegations supporting each claim.

Hoffenberg responded with a 150-paragraph third amended complaint in which he ignored the directive to submit a list of his claims. The District Court dismissed the third amended complaint, again without prejudice, observing that the pleading was "in flagrantdisregard" of its orders, and that Hoffenberg had "submitted a stream of unspecific and unrelated generalities reiterating even the claims expressly dismissed by this Court." Docket # 26 at ¶ 9. The District Court determined that it would, one last time, afford Hoffenberg leave to plead in accordance with the federal rules, and it advised that a non-conforming amendment would result in a dismissal with prejudice.³ The District Court also warned Hoffenberg that a failure to comply would trigger sanctions.

Hoffenberg responded by filing a motion to disqualify the District Judge, and he appealed the order dismissing the third amended complaint. This Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See C.A. No. 10-2346. The District Court denied the motion to disqualify and, after the appeal was dismissed, it granted Hoffenberg a lengthy extension of the time in which to amend.

Hoffenberg ultimately filed a fourth amended complaint, but he again set forth 150 paragraphs, and this time he leveled allegations against the District Judge, naming her as a defendant and claiming bias and misconduct based on her prior rulings in the case. He also added two more prison officials as defendants (Zickefoose and Dr. Chung).

The District Court dismissed the fourth amended complaint with prejudice. It explained that, insofar as Hoffenberg sought recusal, there was no basis to question the Court's impartiality. With regard to the purported Bivens claims, the District Court reviewed the fourth amended complaint and observed that Hoffenberg sought to: (i)revive his dismissed claim that he was denied access to the courts; (ii) reassert his claim that he was denied medical care by Dr. Sulayman, and (iii) introduce a claim, which had been dismissed as unexhausted in a prior § 2241 habeas proceeding, that he should be released to home confinement. The District Court again explained why the first two claims fail to state a claim for relief, and it rejected the third claim as improperly asserted in this suit. Observing that the fourth amended complaint "verifies [Hoffenberg's] interest in producing solely the volumes of self-serving patchy tirades against Defendants and analogous volumes of accusations against this Court (expressing nothing but Hoffenberg's displeasure with the Court's substantive and procedural rulings)," Docket # 60 at p.32, the District Court denied further leave to amend the complaint as futile.

In addition, the District Court reviewed Hoffenberg's actions in the present case as well as in two other civil proceedings that he had filed in the District of New Jersey, and it determined that an injunction restricting his right to file suit was warranted. The District Court ordered that Hoffenberg seek leave of the Chief District Judge before initiating any pro se civil action or habeas proceeding, and should the Chief District Judge grant leave to file, Hoffenberg must file a clear and concise pleading in accordance with the terms of the District Court's order. The District Court exempted from its injunction any complaint in which Hoffenberg makes a bona fide claim of an imminent and ongoing danger to his life or health. Hoffenberg timely filed a notice of appeal.

II.

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the order dismissing Hoffenberg's fourth amended complaint without leave to amend is a finaldecision. We exercise plenary review over the sua sponte dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We review for abuse of discretion a decision to impose restrictions upon a plaintiff's right to commence future litigation. Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329, 331 (3d Cir. 1990).

a. Dismissal of the fourth amended complaint

We will summarily affirm the dismissal of Hoffenberg's fourth amended complaint with prejudice because his appeal of that aspect of the District Court's order presents "no substantial question." 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. To the extent that certain claims for relief can be gleaned from the language of Hoffenberg's overwrought pleadings, the District Court properly concluded that he failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

An inmate claiming denial of access to the courts must show actual injury, Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996), which generally arises only if a non-frivolous claim was lost due to a defendant's actions. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). Despite four opportunities to...