Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HILL v. GATES

September 18, 1996

JEFFREY D. HILL, Plaintiff
v.
G. THOMAS GATES; KENNETH A. OSOKOW; ROBERT M. KEMP; Pa. SUPERIOR COURT-HBG. (OLSZEWSKI, POPOVICH, HESTER, & then KELLY, JOHNSON, & CERCONE); WILLIAM W. LIPSETT; JAMES R. PROTASIO; Pa. SUPREME COURT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCCLURE

 September 18, 1996

 BACKGROUND :

 On August 23, 1996, plaintiff Jeffrey D. Hill initiated this action with the filing of a complaint alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. Hill alleged also that the named defendants acted to deprive him of his rights to equal protection and due process in both criminal proceedings in which Hill was the defendant and civil actions in which Hill was the plaintiff.

 On initial review, the court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and directed Hill to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Specifically, the court indicated that it would consider as an appropriate sanction the issuance of an order rendering Hill subject to the same restrictions with respect to litigation under § 1915 as are applied for prisoners. In addition, following Hill's filing of a notice of appeal, we amplified our order of dismissal, noting that Hill lacked standing to bring suit under RICO. Hill then filed a complaint against the undersigned judge which has been dismissed by another judge of this court. However, no response to our order to show cause has been filed.

 DISCUSSION :

 Hill has a long history of filing frivolous complaints. These complaints, and many of the related documents filed in each of these cases, nearly always are laced with the type of invective which the Superior Court described in Commonwealth v. Hill, 429 Pa. Super. 421, 632 A.2d 928, 434 Pa. Super. 718 (Pa. Super. 1993). A review of the docketing computer prior to our September 3, 1996, order showed that Hill has initiated 42 separate actions in this district alone. They are:

 
4:CV-96-1572
 
4:CV-96-1561
 
4:CV-96-1459
 
4:CV-96-1301
 
4:CV-96-1266
 
4:CV-96-0791
 
4:CV-95-2074
 
4:CV-95-1427
 
4:CV-95-1251
 
4:CV-93-1299
 
3:CV-93-0595
 
4:CV-93-0244
 
3:CV-93-0053
 
3:CV-93-0052
 
3:CV-93-0051
 
3:CV-93-0050
 
3:CV-93-0049
 
3:CV-93-0048
 
3:CV-93-0047
 
3:CV-92-1404
 
3:CV-92-0859
 
4:CV-92-0196
 
3:CV-92-0172
 
3:CV-92-0078
 
3:CV-91-1696
 
3:CV-91-1267
 
3:CV-91-1203
 
3:CV-91-0893
 
3:CV-91-0408
 
3:CV-91-0376
 
3:CV-91-0375
 
3:CV-91-0285
 
3:CV-91-0080
 
3:CV-90-2148
 
3:CV-90-2056
 
3:CV-90-1765
 
3:CV-90-0468
 
3:CV-89-1730
 
3:CV-89-1724
 
3:CV-89-1090
 
...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.