Opinion
No. 94 Civ. 7186 (JFK).
January 12, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 18, 1987, Plaintiff was terminated from his position as a teacher at the Washington Irving High School in New York City. Malley v. Fernandez, No. 91 Civ. 5635 (PKL), 1992 WL 204359 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 1992). To date, Plaintiff has filed fifteen separate cases in this Court, and three in the Eastern District of New York, which concern his termination. See Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 207 F. Supp. 2d 256, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). By order of this Court dated September 10, 1997, Plaintiff was directed not to file "any further complaints in any federal court based on his dismissal by the Board of Education and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated without first obtaining leave of a judge of the court in which he seeks to file such complaint." Malley v. New York City Bd. of Educ., No. 94 Civ. 7186 (JFK), 1997 WL 570571 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 1997).
In 2002, Judge Marrero rejected Plaintiff's attempt to circumvent my order by alleging a violation of his civil rights before his termination. Malley, 207 F. Supp. 2d at 258. In addition to finding the claims time-barred, Judge Marrero found the new complaint "just another of Malley's thinly veiled attempts to reargue claims pertaining to his dismissal by the Board of Education and/or the denial of his application to have his teaching license reinstated." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Judge Marrero then directed that the Clerk of the Court refuse any action filed by Plaintiff unless he submitted an affirmation under penalty of perjury attesting (among other things) that the new case "does not relate to his prior employment with or termination by the Board which he has been enjoined from further litigating." Id. at 259.
In accordance with Judge Marrero's Order, Plaintiff pro se now seeks my leave to file a new Complaint. This Complaint contains an affirmation attesting, in part, "that the case does not relate to his termination by the Board . . . or relate to his prior employment by the Board." (Cmplt. ¶ 14). In actuality, the Complaint relates to just that. This time around, Plaintiff appears to make a fraud claim by alleging "conduct on the part of his employer of decades of secrecy specifically intended to mislead him as to the existence of a cause of action or which had the implementation of making it `impossible for a reasonably prudent person to learn that his discharge was discriminatory.'" (Cmplt. ¶ 6). In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff demands, inter alia, "[d]amages for lost salary, benefits, bonus, all N.Y.C. teaching licenses and compensation due from March 18, 1987 to date of judgment." (Cmplt. ¶ 26).
I will not attempt to improve on Judge Marrero's assessment, which is just as apropos now as it was in 2002. Leave to file the Complaint is denied. Plaintiff is reminded that the Court may punish the making of a false affirmation under penalty of perjury with the imposition of a fine and/or imprisonment of up to five years. See 18 U.S.C. § 1621.