Full Opinion

25-1788-cv Clarke v. County of Suffolk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of October, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, DENNY CHIN, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. __________________________________________ Roger W. Clarke, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-1788-cv County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Suffolk County Child Support Enforcement Bureau ("CSEB" or "SCU"), O/B/O Tammy Boertlein, Tammy Boertlein (individually), All Support Magistrates & Judges of Family Court, County of Suffolk (individually and in their non- judicial administrative capacity), Suffolk County Family Court of the State of New York, Defendants-Appellees.* __________________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Roger W. Clarke, Jr., pro se, Yaphank, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brown, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Roger W. Clarke, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's judgment sua sponte dismissing his complaint as barred by a filing injunction. In 2018, Judge Joanna Seybert of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York imposed a filing injunction against Clarke, barring him from "filing any new action in this Court relating to the support enforcement action pending against Respondent in State Court under Index No. F-18124-16." Matter of a Proceeding for * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official case caption as set forth above. 2 Support under the Fam. Ct. Act, No. 17-CV-6741, 2018 WL 3539816, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 20, 2018). In 2024, Clarke commenced the present action, suing Tammy Boertlein (the mother of his child), Suffolk County, its Department of Social Services and Child Support Enforcement Bureau, the Suffolk County Family Court, and all its support magistrates and judges, seeking to raise various claims relating to the state court child- support enforcement action. The district court (Brown, J.) sua sponte dismissed the action as barred by the 2018 filing injunction. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. In his complaint, Clarke acknowledges that his current suit relates to the child- support enforcement action. See App'x at 30 ("The Verified Complaint is based on the ongoing matter from 2017 until Present. It involves Suffolk County Family Court administrative Support Magistrates' and administrative Family Court Judges' unlawful and illegal child support orders based on forged and fraudulent Acknowledgment of Paternity documents in the case of Suffolk County Department of Social Services, o/b/o Tammy Boertlein, Tammy Boertlein v. Roger W. Clarke, Jr., under Docket No. F-1812416."). The 2018 injunction barred Clarke from "filing any new action in this Court relating to the support enforcement action pending against Respondent in State Court under Index 3 No. F-18124-16." 2018 WL 3539816, at *2. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that this action fell within the filing injunction's scope. The district court construed Clarke's complaint as a request for leave to file and denied the request. Applying de novo review, we find no error. We agree with the district court that "the current lawsuit creates the same risks of vexatious litigation that the permanent injunction was intended to address." App'x at 235; see generally In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir. 1993). Clarke has identified no reason not to enforce the filing injunction. Clarke has also filed a "Motion to Determine Appeal on the Existing Record, to Address Appellee's Failure to File a Brief and Maintain a Proper Appearance." See Dkt. 23. To the extent that the motion asks us to decide the merits of his appeal, it is denied as moot. To the extent he seeks a default judgment as a sanction for Defendants- Appellees' failure to file a brief, the motion is denied. See Chao v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc., 291 F.3d 219, 226 (2d Cir. 2002) ("the sole sanction for an appellee's failure to file an appellate brief is that 'the appellee will not be heard at oral argument except by permission of the court'" (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 31(c))). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 4 It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellant's motion at docket number 23 is DENIED. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 5