The opinion of the court was delivered by: Noel L. Hillman, U.S.D.J.
This matter having come before the Court on its sua sponte review of plaintiff's complaint; and Plaintiff, Enrico Ciarrocchi, appearing pro se, having filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants claiming that they violated his civil rights when plaintiff was involuntarily, and based on false accusations, hospitalized at the Kennedy Memorial Hospital psychiatric unit four times from June 1994 though June 1996; and
It appearing that plaintiff had previously filed the identical claims against these same defendants in this Court, see Civil Action No. 08-2853; and
The Court having dismissed plaintiff's claims on several bases, including the doctrine of res judicata and the applicable statute of limitations, see 08-2853, Docket No. 18*fn1 ; and
The Court finding that plaintiff's reassertion of the same claims here must be dismissed for the same reasons; and
The Court further finding that another basis for dismissal is that claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be advanced against "state actors," and it does not appear that any defendants are state actors, see National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191 (1988)("When Congress enacted § 1983 as the statutory remedy for violations of the Constitution, it specified that the conduct at issue must have occurred 'under color of' state law; thus, liability attaches only to those wrongdoers 'who carry a badge of authority of a State and represent it in some capacity, whether they act in accordance with their authority or misuse it.'"); and
The Court further finding that plaintiff is appearing to engage in "recreational litigation,"*fn2 ; see Marrakush Soc. v. New Jersey State Police, 2009 WL 2366132, *36 (D.N.J. July 30, 2009) (explaining that a "'recreational litigant' is the 'one who engages in litigation as sport and files numerous complaints with little regard for substantive law or court rules.'" (quoting Jones v. Warden of the Stateville Correctional Ctr., 918 F. Supp. 1142, 1153 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (noting that, "[w]hen confronted with [a] recreational plaintiff, courts, to protect themselves and other litigants, have enjoined the filing of further case without leave of court") (other citations omitted)); and
The Court further finding that it is well within the broad scope of the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), for a district court to issue an order restricting the filing of meritless cases by a litigant whose manifold complaints aim to subject defendants to unwarranted harassment, and raise concern for maintaining order in the court's dockets, see id. (citing In Re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982) (stating that "in appropriate circumstances, courts have gone beyond prohibitions against relitigation and enjoined persons from filing any further claims of any sort without the permission of the court"));
IT IS HEREBY on this 3d day of September, 2009 ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that if plaintiff attempts to relitigate these same claims against these same defendants for a third time, the Court will be obligated to enjoin plaintiff from filing any claims ...