George Sassower, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, Fidelity & Deposit Company Ofmaryland, Stafford, Frey, Cooper & Stewart, Generalinsurance Company of America, Lee Feltman, Feltman, Karesh,major & Farbman, Kreindler & Relkin, Pc, Citibank, Na,jeffrey L. Sapir, William L. Dwyer, James L. Oaks, Wilfredfeinberg, Charles L. Brieant, George C. Pratt, Eugene H.nickerson, William C. Conner, Nicholas H. Politan, Solwachter, Francis T. Murphy, Xavier C. Riccobone, Donalddiamond, Alvin F. Klein, David B. Saxe, Ira Gammerman,martin Evans, Denis Dillon, Robert Abrams, Sassower, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Lee Feltman,karesh Major Farbman, Puccini Clothes, Limited, Hyman Raffe,a.r. Fuels, Incorporated, Eugene Dann, Robert Sorrentino,kreindler & Relkin, Pc, Citibank, Na, Jerome H. Barr,nachamie, Hendler & Spizz, Pc, Nashbax & Pokart, Howardbergson, Ira Postel, Francis T. Murphy, Xavier C. Riccobono,michael J. Dontzin, Ira Gaammerman, Alvin F. Klein, David B.saxe, Martin H. Rettinger, Isaac Rubin, Donald Diamond, Solwachtler, George C. Pratt, Charles L. Brieant, Eugene H.nickerson, William C. Connor, Robert Abrams, Andrew J.maloney, Denis Dillon, Allyne Ross, Re George Sassower, Petitioner, 940 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 940 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1991) Submitted Jan. 30, 1991. Decided July 1, 1991

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, District Judge. (CA-90-1937-HAR; CA-90-322-HAR)

On Petition for a Writ of Prohibition.

George Sassower, appellant/petitioner pro se.

Jack Lawrence Benoit Gohn, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, Baltimore, Md., Carolyn Cairns Olson, New York State Department of Law, New York City, Edward James Hutchins, Jr., Eccleston & Wolf, Baltimore, Md., William H. Pauley, III, Snitow & Pauley, New York City, for Appellees.

D. Md.


Before PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.



George Sassower appeals the district court's dismissal of his suits and entry of an order enjoining him from further filings in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against these defendants or relating to the subject matter of his present suits. Sassower has also filed a petition for a writ of prohibition requesting that this Court order the district court not to enforce one of its local rules. Counsel representing members of the federal judiciary and U.S. Attorneys named as defendants has filed a Motion for Further Injunctive Relief.

After reviewing the record and the district court's opinion, we affirm the dismissal of Sassower's suits on the reasoning of the district court. We affirm, as modified, the district court's entry of an injunction against Sassower and grant the Motion for Further Injunctive Relief with one modification. We also deny Sassower's motions made on appeal and deny Sassower's petition for a writ of mandamus.1 

Sassower has filed numerous federal suits. Many of these suits name the same defendants and concern the same underlying facts as this case. He has repeatedly tried to litigate matters stemming from the dissolution and receivership of Puccini Clothes, Ltd. in a variety of forums.

As noted by the Fifth Circuit, " [a] litigious plaintiff pressing a frivolous claim, though rarely succeeding on the merits, can be extremely costly to the defendant and can waste an inordinate amount of court time." Harrelson v. United States, 613 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 1984) (injunction against litigant who abused the court system was proper since other sanctions would not be effective), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1061 (1986); Harrelson, 613 F.2d at 116 (litigant enjoined from relitigating claims arising from the same set of factual circumstances).

To prevent further frivolous and vexatious litigation by Sassower we modify the district court's order by adopting the following injunction:2 

Mr. George Sassower is hereby enjoined from filing, instituting, continuing or prosecuting any civil action in this or any other federal court in this Circuit without first obtaining leave of that court. In seeking leave to file, Mr. Sassower must certify that the claim or claims he wishes to present are new claims never before raised and disposed of on the merits by any federal court. Such claims may not include any relating to or arising from the Puccini litigation, claims objecting to sanctions for which ordinary review has been exhausted, or claims against any state or federal judge, officer, or employee for actions taken in the course of their official duties exercised in connection with Mr. Sassower's previous litigation. He must also certify that the claim or claims are not frivolous, malicious, or taken in bad faith. Additionally, the motion for leave must be captioned "Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File," and Mr. Sassower must cite or affix a copy of this opinion and order to that motion. Failure to comply strictly with the terms of this injunction will be sufficient grounds for summarily denying leave to file. Mr. Sassower may petition for rehearing or petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court for review of this decision and order.

Sassower also seeks a writ of prohibition. Although he claims that his suits were dismissed for failure to abide by a local rule, his suits were dismissed for a variety of reasons, not solely because he failed to keep a local address. As previously noted by this Court, a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy and the party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other means of relief available and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. In re: Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 90-1142, AFFIRMED.




Sassower has filed the following motions in this Court: for summary reversal, to deconsolidate these cases on appeal, for the appointment of counsel, for contempt proceedings to be instigated against several state and federal officials, for this Court to recuse itself, to have this Court instigate an inquiry into the attorneys involved in this suit, and to have this suit stayed

The federal defendants have filed a motion to submit on briefs. We grant this motion.


This injunction adopted here is the same, with one modification, as the one proposed in the government's Motion for Further Injunctive Relief

Sassower was notified by the Court of the Motion for Further Injunctive Relief and he responded with the conclusory statement that such an injunction cannot be issued to bar his access to the courts.