Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendantattorneystatuteappealcivil rights

lawsuitdefendantsubpoenaappealbankruptcy

Related Cases

Farese v. Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1000

Facts

Thomas R. Farese, a federal prisoner, filed two lawsuits against his former business partner Harold Dude and Dude's attorneys, alleging violations of civil rights and RICO. The lawsuits stemmed from prior business disputes involving Florida Ventures, a nightclub operation, where Farese was a minority shareholder. Farese claimed that Dude and his attorneys conspired to intimidate him into withdrawing his lawsuits by threatening his family members and filing frivolous lawsuits against them. The district court consolidated the cases and later dismissed them under the PLRA, leading to Farese's appeal.

Farese's civil-rights complaint also alleged that Dude filed for bankruptcy, placing Club Diamonds and Florida Ventures into bankruptcy, and that when Farese filed an adversary action in the bankruptcy case to affect placement of assets, the Defendants filed malicious and frivolous lawsuits against members of Farese's family in order to (1) intimidate and threaten him and his subpoenaed witnesses; (2) obstruct judicial proceedings; and (3) block his access to the courts.

Issue

Whether the district court properly dismissed Farese's RICO claim under the PLRA and whether Farese had standing to bring his § 1985 claims.

Whether the district court properly dismissed Farese's fees-paid RICO claim under the PLRA; whether the district court properly dismissed Farese's § 1985 claims.

Rule

The PLRA allows for the dismissal of cases filed in forma pauperis if the claims are found to be frivolous or fail to state a claim. Additionally, § 1985 prohibits conspiracies to intimidate parties or witnesses in federal lawsuits.

Section 1915(e)(2) provides: Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal—(i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Analysis

The court found that Farese was not proceeding IFP with respect to his RICO claim, as he had paid the filing fee for that action. Therefore, the PLRA did not apply to his RICO claim, and the district court was not authorized to dismiss it under that statute. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Farese's § 1985 claims, concluding that he lacked standing because the alleged intimidation was directed at his family members rather than at him personally.

The district court specifically found that Farese had not moved to proceed IFP in his RICO suit and had paid the filing and service-of-process fees in that action. The record also reflects that Farese did not proceed IFP in his RICO suit. Furthermore, the consolidation of Farese's cases did not alter the fees-paid status of his RICO case.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Farese's § 1985 claims but reversed the dismissal of his RICO claim, remanding the case for further proceedings.

We conclude that the evidence does not support the district court's determination that Farese was proceeding IFP in his RICO suit. Therefore, because § 1915, which governs only IFP proceedings, does not apply to Farese's fees-paid RICO claim, the district court was not authorized to dismiss the RICO claim pursuant to § 1915.

Who won?

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' claims under § 1985, thus the defendants prevailed on that issue, while Farese prevailed in having his RICO claim reinstated.

The district court correctly determined that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265, 55 USLW 2298, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 761

Ricotta v. State of Cal., 4 F.Supp.2d 961

Herrera-Corral v. Hyman, 408 Ill.App.3d 672, 948 N.E.2d 242, 350 Ill.Dec. 173

Wright by Wright v. Group Health Hosp., 103 Wash.2d 192, 691 P.2d 564, 50 A.L.R.4th 641, 53 USLW 2309

Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 813 F.3d 1233, 93 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1519, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1659