Kifor v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
IMRE KIFOR, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
) Civil Action No. 25-CV-11831-AK
v. )
)
COMMONWEALTH OF )
MASSACHUSETTS; MAURA HEALEY, )
Governor; ANDREA JOY CAMPBELL, )
Attorney General; GEOFFREY E. )
SNYDER, Commissioner Department of )
Revenue; JOHN D. CASEY, Chief Justice; )
BRIAN J. DUNN, Chief Justice; CHRISTY )
OLEZESKI, PHD; KENNETH BURDICK, )
Counseling Center of New England, DR. )
STEVEN STRONGWATER, Atrius )
Health, BARBARA A. DUCHESNE, and )
CYNTHIA S. OULTON, )
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER OF ENJOINMENT
KELLEY, D.J.
On March 25, 2026, this Court dismissed this action filed by Plaintiff Imre Kifor
(“Kifor”). [Dkt. 26]. In the March 25 Order, the Court reminded Kifor that in 2023 he was
warned “that if he continues to file in this Court any future complaints concerning the
proceedings in the state court, he may be restrained from filing any future complaints with this
Court as well as become subject to other filing restrictions and sanctions.” [Id. at 5 (quoting
Kifor v. Commonwealth, et al., No. 23-CV-12692-PBS (screening dismissal), aff’d No. 24-1075
(1st Cir. Nov. 19, 2025)]. “In spite of this warning, Kifor commenced the instant action, thus
engaging in the very type of abuse of the judicial system against which the Court had already
Case 1:25-cv-11831-AK Document 31 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
warned him.” [Id. at 6]. Before issuing an order of enjoinment preventing Kifor from filing any
new cases on the civil docket of this Court without first receiving permission to do so, the Court
allowed an opportunity for Kifor to show good cause why he should not be so enjoined. [Id.].
Instead of addressing the Court’s concerns, Kifor made a 34-page filing that included a
proposed amended complaint titled, “Complaint for Deprivation of Civil Rights and Conspiracy
to Deprive Civil Rights.” [Dkt. 29]. In brief, instead of showing good cause as to why Kifor
should not be enjoined from making filings, he continued to attempt to relitigate the very same
family court matters.
In light of the above and based on the Court’s power to impose filing restrictions
pursuant to its “responsibility to see that [judicial] resources are allocated in a way that promotes
the interests of justice,” Kifor is now ENJOINED from filing any new cases on the civil docket
of this Court without first receiving permission to do so. In re McDonald, 289 U.S 180, 184
(1989) (per curiam).
I. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:
1. Unless represented by counsel, Imre Kifor is hereby ENJOINED from
commencing any new action on the civil docket of this Court without first obtaining written
approval of a judge of this Court by filing a written petition seeking leave of Court to do so.
2. The petition to commence a new action must be accompanied by a copy of this
Order, together with the papers sought to be filed, and a certification under oath that there is a
good-faith basis for their filing.
Case 1:25-cv-11831-AK Document 31 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. The petition must be accompanied by payment of the fee to initiate a case on the
Miscellaneous Business Docket (currently $52.00) or a motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of that fee.
4. The Clerk shall accept the petition and the accompanying documents, mark them
received, and forward them for action on the petition to a judge of this Court authorized to act on
matters on the Miscellaneous Business Docket.
5. Any documents that are submitted for filing by Kifor in violation of this Order
shall not be filed or docketed by the Clerk’s Office, but shall be returned to the plaintiff.
6. In addition, with the exception of a notice of appeal or a motion to appeal in
forma pauperis, Kifor shall not file any further documents in this action. Failure to comply with
this Order may result in sanctions. If the Clerk accepts documents submitted in violation of this
Order, said documents shall not be docketed as motions (even if Kifor designates them as such),
and the Court will not take any action on them. At the Clerk’s discretion, the Clerk may return
to Kifor documents submitted in violation of this order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2025
/s/ Angel Kelley _______________
Hon. Angel Kelley
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-11831-AK Document 31 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3