The opinion of the court was delivered by: Pisano, District Judge:
OPINION APPLIES TO ALL ACTIONS
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
A. Bacon v. Burns, Civil Action No. 10-5484 (JBS)
Plaintiff is a civilly committed individual who commenced his initial case in this District on October 22, 2010; that case was assigned to Judge Jerome B. Simandle ("Judge Simandle"). See Bacon v. Burns ("Bacon v. Burns"), Civil Action No. 10-5484 (JBS) (D.N.J. Oct 22, 2010). The pro se complaint in Bacon v. Burns, as well as the pro se amended complaint filed in that matter on December 23, 2010, alleged that, during a certain period of Plaintiff's confinement, he was subjected to involuntary medication with the anti-psychotic drug Haldol in violation of his constitutional rights. See Bacon v. Burns, Docket Entry No. 1. On April 13, 2011, the defendants in Bacon v. Burns filed their first motion for summary judgment, challenging Plaintiff's claims which, at that point, were still argued pro se. See id. Docket Entries Nos. 13 and 14.
On November 15, 2011, Judge Simandle granted the defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, allowing the sole remaining defendant to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment.*fn1 See id. Docket Entries Nos. 25 and 26.
In connection with resolving the first motion for summary judgment, Judge Simandle made the following factual finding:
On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was transferred from Ann Klein Forensic Center to Ancora Psychiatric Hospital in Hammonton, New Jersey. . . . Dr. Elizabeth Burns . . . the treating psychiatrist for the Plaintiff at Ancora Psychiatric Hospital from September 22, 2009 to January 13, 2010. Dr. Burns diagnosed the Plaintiff with Schizoaffective Disorder Bipolar Type, a major mental illness. Shortly after Dr. Burns began treating the Plaintiff, Dr. Burns prescribed several medications, including Haldol, for his psychiatric disorder. . . . Dr. Burns concluded in her professional opinion that the prescribed medications, including Haldol, were a necessary part of the Plaintiff's treatment plan. . . . On December 3, 2009, Dr. Burns initiated the Three Step Process followed by Ancora Psychiatric Hospital in accordance with New Jersey Administrative Bulletin 5:04 for administering psychotropic medication to a non-consenting patient. Dr. Burns certified that the Plaintiff would harm himself or others without the medication . . . .
Bacon v. Burns, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132148, at *1-3 (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2011) (citations omitted).
In February 2012, that is, about a year and a half after commencing his Bacon v. Burns action, Plaintiff ceased proceeding pro se in that matter, since Judge Simandle appointed two attorneys to act as Plaintiff's pro bono counsel for the purposes of Plaintiff's opposition to that supplemental motion and the remainder of Bacon v. Burns action. See id. Docket Entries Nos. 35, 36, 37, 51 and 52. As of now, that motion is still pending.
B. First Duplicative Case: Bacon v. Mandell
Meanwhile, on October 25, 2010, Plaintiff submitted another civil complaint; that complaint also asserted that his constitutional rights were violated by the same chain of involuntary medications. See Bacon v. Madnell ("Bacon v. Madnell"), Civil Action No. 10-5506 (JAP) (D.N.J. Oct. 25, 2010). This Court, presiding over the Bacon v. Madnell matter, directed administrative termination of Bacon v. Madnell as facially duplicative of Bacon v. Burns. See Bacon v. Madnell, Civil Action No. 10-5506, Docket Entry No. 2. In response, Plaintiff applied for appointment of pro bono counsel and submitted a letter asserting that Bacon v. Mandel was closed in error. See id. Docket Entries Nos. 4 and 5. The Court construed these applications as Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and denied the same by an order issued on December 1, 2010. See id. Docket Entry No. 6.
C. Second Duplicative Case: Bacon v. Adetunji
On February 8, 2011, Plaintiff submitted another civil complaint asserting that his rights were violated by the same chain of involuntary medications. See Bacon v. Adetunji ("Bacon v. Adetunji"), Civil Action No. 11-0706 (JBS) (D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2011), Docket Entry No. 1.
Since Plaintiff's complaint in Bacon v. Adetunji was subject to dismissal on the grounds already articulated twice by this Court in Bacon v. Madnell, Judge Simandle directed termination of Bacon v. Adetunji as duplicative. See Bacon v. Adetunji, Civil Action No. 11-0706, Docket Entry No. 2 (relying on the explanations provided by this Court in Bacon v. Madnell). That termination took place on March 21, 2011. See id. at 3.
D. Six Cases Commenced at the Beginning of 2012
During the first few months of 2012, Plaintiff submitted six new civil
complaints, thus commencing six new actions in this District.
Specifically, Plaintiff initiated Bacon v. Dupree ("Bacon v. Dupree"),
Civil Action No. 12-0784 (assigned to Judge Simandle),*fn2
and five matters assigned to the undersigned, namely: Bacon
v. Anne Klein Forensic Center ("Bacon v. AKFC"), Civil Action No.
12-0841; Bacon v. Whitman ("Bacon v. Whitman"), Civil Action No.
12-0842; Bacon v. Davis ("Bacon v. Davis"), Civil Action No. 12-0843;
Bacon v. Jamesburg Detention Home for Boys ("Bacon v. Jamesburg"),
Civil Action No. 12-0844; and Bacon v. Forsythe ("Bacon v. Forsythe"),
Civil Action No. 12-0845.
In Bacon v. AKFC, Plaintiff asserted that he was "falsely convicted of crime and put in double jeopardy"; he sought monetary damages in the amount of "eight billion dollars" on the basis of his belief that his conviction and/or civil confinement were illegal. The Court determined that this application for monetary relief was facially premature under the holding of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), while Plaintiff's request for release from confinement was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, since that request was of habeas nature. See Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71018 (D.N.J. May 21, 2012). However, out of abundance of caution, the Court granted leave to Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in Bacon v. AKFC and reserved the determination as to whether Plaintiff's application for appointment of pro bono counsel should be granted.*fn3
In Bacon v. Whitman, Plaintiff alleged that a certain "Christie Todd Whitman"*fn4 violated Plaintiff's rights because she "endangered the welfare of a child" since she "put criminal charges on a child that were meant to protect children but instead put this child in a dangerous position for the rest of his life on Megans as a juvenile child 14 years old." Bacon v. Whitman, Docket Entry No. 1. In connection with this allegation, Plaintiff sought "88 zillion dollars." Id. The Court ruled on Plaintiff's Bacon v. Whitman challenges as follows:
Even if this Court were to hypothesize that Plaintiff refers to himself as "the child" at issue (since, otherwise, Plaintiff's claims would necessarily be subject to dismissal for lack of standing), it is self-evident that Governor Whitman could not have any personal involvement in Plaintiff's criminal prosecution or in procurement of his order of civil commitment, since - at no point in her career -Governor Whitman acted as an attorney, moreover a prosecutor. Therefore, even reading Plaintiff's claim in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, this Court can construe his Bacon v. Whitman challenge only as an assertion that Governor Whitman violated Plaintiff's rights by being New Jersey Governor during the time when either Plaintiff's criminal prosecution or his civil commitment proceedings were taking place. However, at most, this claim implicates Governor Whitman only in her supervisory capacity, as the State's top administrative official. That claim is facially meritless, since challenges based on solely on the respondeat superior theory are not cognizable under Section 1983.
Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71018, at *11-12 (citations omitted).
Consequently, as with Bacon v. AKFC, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Bacon v. Whitman challenges without prejudice to filing of amended pleading and reserved its determination as to whether appointment of pro bono counsel was warranted.*fn5
In Bacon v. Davis, Plaintiff alleged that a certain "Alex Davis" committed medical malpractice by forcefully injecting Plaintiff with Haldol (apparently, per Dr. Burn's orders); in connection with that assertion, Plaintiff maintained that he was allergic to Haldol and sought "2 billion dollars." See Bacon v. Davis, Docket Entry No. 1. However, Judge Simandle's decision in Bacon v. Burns -- and the underlying record filed in that matter -- established that Plaintiff had no allergic reaction to Haldol. See, generally, Bacon v. Burns, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132148 at *5 (describing Plaintiff's treatment). Correspondingly, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's Bacon v. Davis challenges for lack of diversity jurisdiction (necessary to support a state-law medical malpractice claim) and as barred by the doctrine of res judicata in light of Judge Simandle's factual findings made in Bacon v. Burns. See Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71018, at *12-13. However, as with Bacon v. AKFC and Bacon v. Whitman, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Bacon v. Davis challenges with leave to file an amended complaint; the Court also reserved its determination as to appointment of pro bono counsel.*fn6
In Bacon v. Jamesburg, Plaintiff named "Jamesburg Detention Home for Boys"*fn7 as the sole defendant; he asserted that this defendant "[d]id not treat for crime with facts of finding and brought no legal lawyers for child." Bacon v. Jamesburg, Docket Entry No. 1. In connection with that assertion, Plaintiff sought "one million eight hundred thousand dollars" in damages. Id.
The Court pointed out that Plaintiff's Bacon v. Jamesburg challenges were defective for a number of reasons. First, a detention center is not a "person" within the meaning of a § 1983 suit. Furthermore, even if this Court were to presume that Plaintiff wished to name facility staff (rather than the facility itself) as Defendant, the facility staff -- being employees of a place of confinement -- had no duty to obtain, and no role in obtaining, legal representation for Plaintiff. Finally, even presuming that Plaintiff merely wished to assert that he was wrongfully convicted or civilly committed, his claims would be barred by Heck on the grounds already articulated by this Court with regard to Bacon v. AKFC, as his challenges would be premature.
Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71018, at *14-15 (citations omitted).
Nonetheless, as in Bacon v. AKFC, Bacon v. Whitman and Bacon v. Davis, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Bacon v. Jamesburg allegations without prejudice and reserved the issue of whether appointment of pro bono counsel was warranted.*fn8
Finally, in Bacon v. Forsythe, Plaintiff alleged that a certain "Forsythe," who apparently was an inmate, violated Plaintiff's rights because Forsythe "lied on Joel Bacon about a crime [thus] destroying someone's life." Bacon v. Forsythe, Docket Entry No. 1. Plaintiff clarified that the alleged lie took place during Forsythe's testimony before a certain judge; in connection with this allegation Plaintiff sought "1.28 billion dollars." Id. The Court dismissed these challenges since witnesses are absolutely immune from civil suit for damages based upon their testimony. See Bacon v. Anne Klein Forensic Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71018, at *15.
As in Bacon v. AKFC, Bacon v. Whitman, Bacon v. Davis and Bacon v. Jamesburg, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Bacon v. Forsythe claims with leave to amend and reserved the issue of whether appointment of pro bono counsel was warranted.*fn9
E. Recent Influx of Cases
Shortly after his commencement of Bacon v. AKFC, Bacon v. Whitman, Bacon v. Davis, Bacon v. Jamesburg and Bacon v. Forsythe, Plaintiff initiated twenty-three other matters in this District.*fn10
In Bacon v. Roth, Civil Action No. 12-2778 (JAP) (D.N.J. May 8, 2012), Plaintiff asserted, once again, that he was unduly subjected to forced medication; in connection with this claim, Plaintiff requested "one billion dollars" in damages. See id. Docket Entry No. 1. Although Plaintiff's Bacon v. Roth challenges are facially duplicative of those raised un Bacon v. Burns (and of those dismissed in Bacon v. Mandell and Bacon v. Adetunji), Plaintiff has applied for appointment of pro bono counsel in Bacon v. Roth in an apparent hope to have a legal counsel help him litigate these duplicative challenges.
In Bacon v. Marty, Civil Action No. 12-2779 (JAP) (D.N.J. May 8, 2012), Plaintiff asserted that a certain "Dr. Marty" was "neglecting" Plaintiff by not responding to Plaintiff's phone calls and by promising Plaintiff to keep "neglecting" Plaintiff's calls to "Dr. Marty's hospital." See id. Docket Entry No. 1. In connection with this claim, Plaintiff requested "one billion dollars" in damages. See id. Plaintiff's Bacon v. Marty challenges appears facially meritless, since Plaintiff had no constitutional right in phone calls to a doctor or a hospital (moreover to the doctor or hospital of Plaintiff's choice). Plaintiff has applied for appointment of pro bono counsel in Bacon v. Marty.
3. Bacon v. Atlantic City Police
In Bacon v. Atlantic City Police, Civil Action No. 12-2883 (JAP) (D.N.J. May 8, 2012), Plaintiff -- who is and has been for many years confined in state facilities -- asserted, without any clarification, "police brutality, excessive force and attempted murder." See id. Docket Entry No. 1. In connection with this new line of claims, Plaintiff sought "eighteen billion dollars" in damages. See id. Plaintiff's Bacon v. Atlantic City Police challenges appear time barred and wholly divorced ...