Opinion
95 CV 1428 (EHN), 06 CV 3959 (CBA), 07 CV 0412 (CBA).
January 29, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs William Pikulin and Savely Petreykov have filed numerous pro se actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, many of them related to a series of events that began in 1988 and involved New York City construction contracts. Each of those actions was ultimately dismissed. The above-captioned Complaint was dismissed, sua sponte, by an Order of this Court dated December 15, 2006. Notwithstanding that dismissal, plaintiff Pikulin continues to submit documents to the Court under the docket numbers of the dismissed cases. More recently, Pikulin has addressed his submissions to the Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, who, as the Chief Judge, advised the plaintiffs that he is without jurisdiction to act in a matter assigned to another judge. The Court has directed the Clerk of Court to return these submissions to plaintiffs.
See Petreykoy, et. al. v. International Fidelity Insurance Co., No. 95 CV 1428 (EHN), 1999 WL 1186807 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 1999),aff'd No. 99-9471 slip op. (2d Cir. May 3, 2000); Pikulin, et. al. v. The United States, et. al., 06 CV 3959 (CBA) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2006); Pikulin, et. al. v. Gonzales, et. al., 07 CV 0412 (CBA), 2007 WL 1063353 (E.D.N.Y. April 5, 2007).
Plaintiff Pikulin alone has signed the recent submissions and purports to be acting as "Attorney for Plaintiffs." The Court reminds plaintiffs that a non-attorney appearing pro se may not represent another pro se litigant. See Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998) ("because pro se means to appear for one's self, a person may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause").
The Clerk of Court is directed not to accept any future filings from plaintiffs under docket numbers 95 CV 1428 (EHN), 06 CV 3959 (CBA), and 07 CV 0412 (CBA). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.