Johnson v. Extended Stay America et al, No. 5:2022cv00524 - Document 9 (N.D.N.Y 2022)
Court Description: ORDER granting 6 Report and Recommendations. The Report & Recommendation is ACCEPTED in each of the twenty-one above-captioned civil actions; The twenty-one above-captioned civil actions are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and Plaintiffs motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 7/11/22. (Copy served via regular and certified mail) (egr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. Extended Stay America et al Doc. 9 Case 5:22-cv-00524-DNH-ATB Document 9 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-480 RAMADA CARRIER CIRCLE and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-511 COURTYARD SYRACUSE DOWNTOWN AT ARMORY SQUARE and MARRIOTT BONVOY, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-512 QUALITY INN & SUITES DOWNTOWN and CHOICE HOTELS, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-513 SPRINGHILL SUITES CLEVELAND INDEPENDENCE and MARRIOTT BONVOY, Defendants. ---------------------------------- Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:22-cv-00524-DNH-ATB Document 9 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 7 ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-514 COURTYARD ERIE BAYFRONT and MARRIOTT BONVOY, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-524 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, ESA MANAGEMENT LLC and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-526 BEST WESTERN PLUS and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-527 SPRINGHILL SUITES SYRACUSE CARRIER CIRCLE and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------- -2- Case 5:22-cv-00524-DNH-ATB Document 9 Filed 07/11/22 Page 3 of 7 ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-528 RED ROOF INN #157 and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-529 HAMPTON BY HILTON and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-530 MOTEL 6 and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-531 EMBASSY SUITES BY HILTON and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-532 AMERICAS BEST VALUE INN and INDEED, Defendants. ----------------------------------3- Case 5:22-cv-00524-DNH-ATB Document 9 Filed 07/11/22 Page 4 of 7 ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-533 FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT SYRACUSE CARRIER CIRCLE and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-534 CRESTHILL SUITES and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-535 EXECUTIVE EAST SYRACUSE HOTEL LLC and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-536 RODEWAY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------- -4- Case 5:22-cv-00524-DNH-ATB Document 9 Filed 07/11/22 Page 5 of 7 ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-537 DAYS INN BY WINDHAM SYRACUSE and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-538 CANDLEWOOD SUITES EAST SYRACUSE and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-539 DOUBLETREE BY HILTON SYRACUSE and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -v5:22-CV-540 HOMETOWN INN BY RED ROOF and INDEED, Defendants. ---------------------------------- -5- Case 5:22-cv-00524-DNH-ATB Document 9 Filed 07/11/22 Page 6 of 7 APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, Pro Se 112 Court Street, Apt. 2 Watertown, NY 13601 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION On May 17 and May 19, 2022, pro se plaintiff Robert W. Johnson (“plaintiff”) filed these twenty-one civil rights actions alleging he was “denied employment” and “discriminated against” by the various hotel defendants and that defendant Indeed “falsified ads and employment.” Along with each complaint, plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). On June 21, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter granted plaintiff’s IFP Applications for the purposes of filing only and advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that the complaint in each civil action be dismissed without leave to amend as frivolous. As Judge Baxter explained, plaintiff’s pleading in each case failed to plausibly allege the basic elements of any viable claims against any of the named defendants. And as Judge Baxter noted, plaintiff’s latest set of filings were “not the first barrage of frivolous complaints filed by the plaintiff.” To the contrary, at the time these twenty-one civil actions were filed in this judicial district, plaintiff was already subject to bar orders and filing -6- Case 5:22-cv-00524-DNH-ATB Document 9 Filed 07/11/22 Page 7 of 7 injunctions in the Southern District of New York, the District of Connecticut, the Southern District of Ohio, and had previously been warned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that his continued filing of frivolous appeals might also result in a filing injunction in that forum. In addition, as a result of plaintiff’s filing of forty-five new civil rights actions in a ten-day period, as of May 19, 2022, plaintiff had been “permanently enjoined from filing any pleadings or documents as a pro se plaintiff in this district without prior permission. Plaintiff has filed objections in each action. Upon de novo review, the R&R will be accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. The Report & Recommendation is ACCEPTED in each of the twenty-one above-captioned civil actions; 2. The twenty-one above-captioned civil actions are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and 3. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 11, 2022 Utica, New York. -7-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
