United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
IN RE OAK HEE KIM'S PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIVE CIVIL ACTIONS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NATHANIEL M. GORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons stated below, the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 4) is ALLOWED, the motion for
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 5) is DENIED, the
petitions for leave to file proposed actions (ECF Nos. 1 and
2) are DENIED, and the action is DISMISSED.
Oak-Hee Kim, also known as Oak-Hee Ruesch, is an abusive pro
se filer.She is enjoined from filing any paper in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts without first obtaining leave of court. The
enjoinment order states:
[I]f Oak-hee Ruesch undertakes to file any additional papers
in this Court, she shall file a written petition seeking
leave to do so. The petition must contain a copy of this
order, together with the papers sought to be filed, and a
certification under oath that there is a good-faith basis for
their filing. The Clerk of Court shall accept the documents,
mark them received, and forward them, for action on the
petition to a judge of this Court authorized to act on
matters on the Miscellaneous Business Docket of the Court.
Ruesch is instructed that any failure to comply with these
requirements may result in additional sanctions, including
Ruesch v. Goodhue, 04-cv-12390-NG (November 21,
2004, p. 3, ECF No. 7). Plaintiff now brings two petitions,
along with over 1000 pages of submissions, seeking leave to
file five separate actions in this Court. Her claims,
broadly, encompass two areas: (1) claims relating to her
eviction from a Wellesley Housing Authority property in
approximately 2002, and (2) claims that the Newton Housing
Authority is using salt and sand during the winter near her
housing (the salt purportedly aggravating her alleged
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) along with other ancillary
claims. On April 24, 2017, along with the petitions and
proposed complaints, petitioner also filed a motion to
proceed with this petition in forma pauperis and a motion for
appointment of counsel.
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is Allowed.
Court has reviewed petitioner's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and find that it is meritorious. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the motion is ALLOWED.
The Motion for Appointment of Counsel is Denied.
there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case,
and the exceptional circumstances that warrant the
appointment of counsel are not present here, the motion to
appoint counsel is DENIED. King v.
Greenblatt, 149 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1998).
Petitions for Leave to File Five Complaints are
context of reviewing the present petitions of an enjoined
litigant for leave to file proposed actions, it is "well
established that it is proper and necessary for an injunction
to issue barring a party ... from filing and processing
frivolous and vexatious lawsuits." Lu v.
Menino, 98 F.Supp.3d 85, 108 (D. Mass. 2015)(quoting
Gordon v. U.S. Dept. of Justice. 558 F.2d 618, 618
(1st Cir.1977)). Had these actions been filed in the ordinary
course, the Court would have the "inherent authority to
dismiss a frivolous or malicious complaint sua
sponte" Akande v. John Doe I, No. CIV. A.
12-10742-RWZ, 2012 WL 1658981, at *1 (D. Mass. May 10,
2012)(citing Mallard v. United States District
Court. 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989); Fitzgerald v.
First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362,
363-64 (2d Cir.2000)). To the extent that petitioner were to
proceed in forma pauperis, the proposed actions would be
subject to the screening requirements under 28 U.S.C.
a proposed complaint must comply with the basic pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that the complaint contain "a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and.. .a demand for the relief
sought[.]" Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(3)(emphasis supplied).
This statement must " 'give the defendant fair
notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests,' " Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting
Cpnley v. Gibson.355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). It must
afford the defendants a "[']meaningful opportunity
to mount a defense, ' " Diaz-Rivera v.
Rivera-Rodriguez,377 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2004)
(quoting Rodriguez v. Doral Mortgage Corp., 57 F.3d
1168, 1172 (1st Cir. 1995)). The court may dismiss a
complaint that fails to comply with the "short and plain
statement" requirement. Kuehl v. Fed. Deposit Ins.
Co.. 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993). ...