D.N.J. Civ. No. 88-01012. D.N.J. No. 88-01562
Present: Mansmann, Scirica, and Rosenn, Circuit Judges
George Sassower, a frequent litigant in this Court, has filed numerous duplicative and repetitive appeals,*fn1 and petitions for writs of mandamus/ prohibition,*fn2 derived first from cases originally heard and finally determined in the federal courts of the Second Circuit*fn3 and thereafter from related actions filed in the District of Jersey, at Civil No. 88-1012, Sassower v. Abrams, et al., and, Civil No. 88-1562, Sassower v. Feltman, et al.*fn4
Furthermore, Mr. Sassower has filed in this Court numerous repetitive pleadings, motions, briefs and other submissions containing frivolous legal arguments, flagrant misstatements of fact, and scurrilous allegations in these appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus/prohibition related to or arising from D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 88-1012 and 88-1562.
In light of the foregoing, and deeming that Mr. Sassower appeared to be abusing the judicial process, this Court entered an order on September 20, 1991, addressed to Mr. Sassower, to show cause within twenty-one (21) days why he should not be enjoined from filing, without prior authorization of this Court, any future appeal or petition for writ of mandamus/prohibition arising from, related to or involving the parties in D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 88-1012 and 88-1562. As of the date of this Order, Mr. Sassower has made not responded whatsoever to this Court's Order to show cause.
Subsequent to the entering of this Court's show cause Order, however, Mr. Sassower filed two separate appeals from orders entered in D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 88-1012 and 88-1562, as well as another appeal arising from his conviction for criminal contempt, D.N.J. Crim. No. 89-103. In these three appeals, consolidated at Court of Appeals Nos. 91-5936, 91-5986 and 92-5012, Mr. Sassower has filed with this Court at least twelve separate, repetitive and abusive motions, supporting documents or other papers.
The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1561(a), authorizes this Court to enjoin an appellant from filing repetitive and abusive appeals and original proceedings. As we have noted, "of course, any such order is an extreme remedy, and should be used only in exigent circumstances," In Re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982), and "should be narrowly tailored." Matter of Packer Ave. Associates, 884 F.2d 745, 747 (3d Cir. 1989). When a litigant or appellant continually "raise[s] claims identical or similar to those that have already been adjudicated, . . . the interests of repose, finality of judgments, protection of defendants from unwanted harassment, and concern for maintaining order in the court's dockets have been sufficient to warrant such prohibition." In Re Oliver, 682 F.2d at 445. See also Zatko v. California, U.S. , 112 S. Ct. 355 (1991) (Applying Supreme Court Rule 39.8, the denial of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis when a petition for writ of certiorari or other filing is frivolous or malicious is appropriate when "a pattern of repetitious filing . . . has resulted in an extreme abuse of the system").
Mr. Sassower's repetitive and vexatious filings in this Court have reached the point of an abuse of the judicial process of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit justifying an injunctive order issued pursuant to our powers under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Furthermore, Mr. Sassower has been given notice and ample opportunity to be heard in opposition to the imposition of such an injunction. In Re Oliver, 682 F.2d. at 446. Rather than responding to this Court's Order to show cause, however, Mr. Sassower has filed further abusive and repetitive appeals arising from D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 88-1012 and 88-1562.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that George Sassower is hereby enjoined from filing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit without prior authorization of this Court, any appeal or petition for writ of mandamus/prohibition related to the dissolution of Puccini Clothes Ltd., any further appeals or petitions for writs of mandamus/prohibition or any other motion, pleading, or brief derived from or related to District of New Jersey Civil No. 88-1012, Sassower v. Abrams, et al., and, District of New Jersey Civil No. 88-1562, Sassower v. Feltman, et al., and specifically with respect to any and all of the following named defendants/respondents in connection with D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 88-1012 and 88-1562:
Robert Abrams; Samuel A. Alito, Jr.; AR. Fuels, Inc.; Jerome H. Barr; Joseph W. Bellacosa; Howard M. Bergson; Berlin, Kaplan, Dembling & Burke, P.C.; Charles L. Brieant; Cahn, Wishod, Wishod & Lamb; Susan Cassell; Michael Chertoff; Citibank, N.A.; Clapp & Eisenberg, P.C.; William C. Conner; David S. Cook; Kenneth M. Cozza; Eugene Dann; Donald Diamond; Denis Dillon; Wilfred Feinberg; Lee Feltman; Feltman, Karesh, Major & Farbman; Robert W. Gaffey; James C. Francis, IV; Ira Gammerman; David Greenberg; Matthew Ireland; Harold Jones; Bentley Kassal; Irving R. Kaufman; Daniel Kelleher; Alvin F. Klein; Kreindler & Relkin, P.C.; Theodore R. Kupferman; Hugh Leonard; J. Kenneth Littman; Anthony Mastroianni; Roger Miner; Jacob Mishler; Thomas J. Meskill; Milton Mollen; Sally Mrvos; Francis T. Murphy; Nachamie, Kirschner, Spizz & Levine, P.C.; Eugene H. Nickerson; Ira Postel; George C. Pratt; Puccini Clothes Ltd.; Hyman Raffe; Rashba & Pokart; Reisman, Peirez & Purke, P.C.; Reisman, Peirez, Reisman & Calica; Xavier C. Riccobono; Ernst H. Rosenberger; Rothbart, Rothbart & Kohn; Isaac Rubin; Matthew D. Sansveri(f)(e); Joseph J. Santacroce; Jeffrey L. Sapir; David B. Saxe; Walter M. Schackman; Schneck & Weltman; Howard Schwartzberg; John J. Scura; Ernest L. Signorelli; Sills, Cumis, Zuckerman, Radin, Tishman, Epstein & Gross, P.C.; P. Douglas Sisk; Jeffrey I. Slonim; Peter Sordi; Robert Sorrentino; Robert H. Straus; Suffolk, New York, County of; William C. Thompson; Ellsworth A. Van Graafieland; Marcia Waldron; Moses M. Weinstein; and, Charles Zangara.