George v. New York State Division of Parole, 685 F. App'x 30

Petitioner Patrick George, pro se, repeatedly filed duplicative motions for reconsideration of a 1996 denial of his habeas challenge to 1988 and 1991 New York convictions.
Between September and November 2015 George filed five essentially identical motions; the district court denied the third motion on November 11, 2015 and warned further repetitive filings could lead to a filing injunction.
George filed additional motions on November 17 and November 19, 2015, explicitly acknowledging the warning and asserting entitlement under various rules; the court reiterated its warning after denying relief.
After a fifth duplicative motion, the district court entered an order enjoining George from filing future motions challenging his convictions without first obtaining leave of the district court.
George appealed the injunction, arguing he was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard and contesting the merits of his motions; the Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court may impose a filing injunction against a litigant for repetitive, frivolous filings	George argued he was not afforded proper notice and opportunity to be heard before the injunction	Parole (via DA) argued the court gave notice and opportunity and injunction was warranted to prevent abuse	Court held injunction was proper; no denial of due process and no abuse of discretion
Whether George’s repeated filings were sufficient to constitute "extraordinary circumstances"	George contended his filings invoked legitimate procedural and evidentiary rules	Respondent contended filings were duplicative, vexatious, and continued despite warnings	Court held repeated duplicative filings and continued filings after warnings demonstrated extraordinary circumstances
Whether lesser sanctions would suffice instead of an injunction	George implied less restrictive remedies could address concerns	Respondent argued injunction was necessary to prevent continued abuse and burden on court resources	Court applied Safir factors and found injunction appropriate and not an abuse of discretion
Whether merits of underlying habeas/reconsideration claims are before the court on this appeal	George sought review of merits along with injunction	Respondent limited appeal to injunction's validity	Court declined to reach merits; appeal limited to injunction issue

Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for filing injunctions)
Milltex Indus. Corp. v. Jacquard Lace Co., Ltd., 55 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1995) (extraordinary circumstances standard for injunctions against filings)
Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (factors court must consider before imposing filing restraints)
Iwachiw v. N.Y.S. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525 (2d Cir. 2005) (requirement of notice and opportunity to be heard before filing injunction)