Sassower v. Dosal
| Decision Date | 05 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4-90-571. |
| Citation | 744 F. Supp. 908 |
| Parties | George SASSOWER, Plaintiff, v. Francis E. DOSAL; Floyd E. Boline; Jerome G. Arnold; "John Fixer," name fictitious and unknown to plaintiff at present; West Publishing Company; Lee Feltman; Feltman, Karesh, Major & Farbman; Kreindler & Relkin, P.C.; Citibank, N.A.; Jerome H. Barr; James L. Oaks; Wilfred Feinberg; George C. Pratt; Charles L. Brieant; William C. Conner; Eugene H. Nickerson; Edward R. Korman; I. Leo Glasser; Allyne Ross; Howard Schwartzberg; Nicholas H. Politan; Sol Wachtler; Matthew T. Crosson; Francis T. Murphy; Guy J. Mangano; Milton Mollen; William C. Thompson; Xavier C. Riccobono; Alvin F. Klein; David B. Saxe; Ira Gammerman; Donald Diamond; Robert Abrams; Robert Straus; Denis Dillon; Mead Data Central, Inc.; Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co.; New York Law Journal Company; Price Communications Corp.; and New Jersey Law Journal; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
George Sassower, White Plains, N.Y., pro se.
Jerome G. Arnold, U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants Francis E. Dosal, Floyd E. Boline, and Jerome G. Arnold.
This matter is before the Court on two motions for preliminary injunctive relief brought by plaintiff. Upon review of the file, the Court notes that the case is substantially duplicative of an action previously brought by plaintiff, Sassower v. Carlson, et al., CIVIL 4-90-511, which was dismissed by another judge of this Court on August 20, 1990 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) on the grounds that it was frivolous and malicious. That order was pursuant to a detailed report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate which concluded that the case was barred by previous injunctions issued by previous courts. See Sassower v. Carlson, CIVIL 4-90-511 (); see also Raffe v. John Doe, 619 F.Supp. 891, 895 (S.D.N.Y.1985). See also Polur v. Raffe, 727 F.Supp. 810, 812 (S.D. N.Y.1989) (). The Magistrate further found that plaintiff's sole purpose in filing the action was to harass defendants in a new forum.
While plaintiff in the present action does not petition for in forma pauperis standing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Court nevertheless has the power, sua sponte, to review the allegations of the complaint to determine whether the complaint should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir.1983). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Jurisdiction is deemed not to lie where the federal claim asserted is immaterial, insubstantial or frivolous. Franklin v. Oregon Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir.1981). As the United States Supreme Court stated in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946):
A suit may sometimes be dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the alleged claim under ... federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sassower v. Abrams
...complaints in the federal district court in Minnesota. See Sassower v. Carlson, Civ. 4-90-511 (D.Minn. August 20, 1990); Sassower v. Dosal, 744 F.Supp. 908 (D.Minn.1990). In these two actions, Sassower, inter alia, identified a group of "racketeering defendants" including members of the Sou......
-
In re Sassower
...complaints in the federal district court in Minnesota. See Sassower v. Carlson, Civ. 4-90-511 (D.Minn. August 20, 1990); Sassower v. Dosal, 744 F.Supp. 908 (D.Minn.1990). In these two actions, Sassower, inter alia, identified a group of "racketeering defendants" including members of the Sou......
-
Sassower v. Carlson, s. 90-5474
...orders of the district court 1 dismissing his two actions brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961 and 1964(a), (c). 744 F.Supp. 908. We Sassower filed No. 90-5474 in forma pauperis seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, and $50 million in damages, trebled under RICO, ......
-
Sassower, In re
...v. Carlson, 930 F.2d at 584. On December 6, 1991, Sassower commenced an action in violation of this order. George Sassower v. Jerome G. Arnold, 744 F.Supp. 908 (D.Minn.1990). The District Court referred the case to this Court for the purpose of determining whether to impose On April 6, 1992......