Chrustowski v. Boos et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
RICHARD BOOS,etal.
Defendants.
P^NEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
AILEEN HASSLER,et al.,
Defendants.
RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
U.S. SUPREME COURT,et al,
Defendants.
Civ. No. 25-587-CFC
Civ. No. 25-606-CFC
Civ. No. 25-715-CFC
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
BRIAN CORKUM,et al,
Defendants.
RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
APPOQUINIMINK LIBRARY,et al.
Defendants.
RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
KIMBERLY ANDREWS,et al.
Defendants.
Civ. No. 25-716-CFC
Civ. No. 25-717-CFC
Civ. No. 25-718-CFC
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
USPS-MIDDLETOWN,etal.
Defendants.
RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
CHARLLOT BURROWS,et al.
Defendants.
RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
DERRICK JOHNSON,et al.
Defendants.
Civ. No. 25-782-CFC
Civ. No. 25-783-CFC
Civ. No. 25-784-CFC
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
SHELLY CHRUSTOWSKI,et al.,
Defendants.
RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
KARRYL HUBBARD,et al,
Defendants.
RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
CHRISTIANA CARE HOSPITAL,et al.
Defendants.
Civ. No. 25-785-CFC
Civ. No. 25-786-CFC
Civ. No. 25-905-CFC
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Renee A. Chrustowski initiated the twelve above-captioned civil
actions pro se between May 12, 2025, and July 18, 2025. This Court granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in each case. As such. Plaintiffs
pleadings are subject to this Court's sua sponte review and dismissal upon a
determination that they are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek
monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). At the screening stage, this Court accepts the facts
alleged in Plaintiffs prose pleadings as true, draws all reasonable inferences in
Plaintiffs favor, and asks only whether the complaints, liberally construed, contains
facts sufficient to state plausible claims. See Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366,
374(3dCir. 2021).
With the inclusion of the twelve new cases captioned above, from July 10,
2023 to the present. Plaintiff has initiated over forty-five civil actions pro se in this
District.' Over thirty ofPlaintiffs cases have been adjudicated; all were dismissed
'See Chrustowski v. RCA Middletown Post Office, et al. Civ. No. 23-745-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Chrustowski, et al. Civ. No. 23-746-CFC; Chrustowski
V. Chrustowski, Civ. No. 23-803-CFC; Chrustowski v. NAACP-Derrick Johnson,
Civ. No. 23-804-CFC; Chrustowski v. Carney's Point Township,
Civ. No. 23-858-CFC; Chrustowski v. Johnson, Civ. No. 23-873-CFC; Chrustowski
V. Cheeks, et al. Civ. No. 23-887-CFC; Chrustowski v. Christian Life Center, et al.
Civ. No. 23-888-CFC; Chrustowski v. USPS-Middletown Post Office,
Civ. No. 23-1027-CFC; Chrustowski v. USPS, et al. Civ. No. 23-1206-CFC;
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

Chrustowski v. LifeHouse Church, et al, Civ. No. 24-35-CFC; Chrustowski v. Best
Buy, Civ. No. 24-36-CFC; Chrustowski v. DeJoy, et al. Civ. No. 24-37-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Scull, et al.. Civ. No. 24-38-CFC; Chrustowski v. Delaware
Department of Labor, et al. Civ. No. 24-407-CFC; Chrustowski v. Equal
Employment Services, et al. Civ. No. 24-418-CFC; Chrustowski v. Officer Dryer,
et al. Civ. No. 24-431-CFC; Chrustowski v. Citi Bank Financial, et al.
Civ. No. 24-554-CFC; Chrustowski v. Bishop, et al. Civ. No. 24-555-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Chrustowski, et al. Civ. No. 24-813-CFC; Chrustowski v. Greiner,
et al. Civ. No. 24-814-CFC; Chrustowski v. Sebell, et al. Civ. No. 24-1197-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al.
Civ. No. 24-1247-CFC; Chrustowski v. Roberts, et al. Civ. No. 25-I44-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Capano Management Co, et al. Civ. No. 25-487-CFC; Chrustowski
V. Mieczkowski, et al. Civ. No. 25-528-CFC; Chrustowski v. Connolly, et al.
Civ. No. 25-562-MN; Chrustowski v. Super, et al. Civ. No. 25-586-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Boos, et al. Civ. No. 25-587-CFC; Chrustowski v. Hassler, et al.
Civ. No. 25-606-CFC; Chrustowski v. U.S. Supreme Court, et al.
Civ. No. 25-715-CFC; Chrustowski v. Corkum, et al. Civ. No. 25-716-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Appoquinimink Library, et al. Civ. No. 25-717-CFC; Chrustowski
V. Andrews, et al. Civ. No. 25-718-CFC; Chrustowski v. USPS-Middletown, et al.
Civ. No. 25-782-CFC; Chrustowski v. Burrows, et al. Civ. No. 25-783-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Johnson, et al. Civ. No. 25-784-CFC; Chrustowski v. Chrustowski
et al. Civ. No. 25-785-CFC; Chrustowski v. Hubbard, et al. Civ. No. 25-786-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Roberts, et al. Civ. No. 25-815-CFC; Chrustowski v. Dryher, et al.
Civ. No. 25-816-CFC; Chrustowski v. Rally's Casino, et al. Civ. No. 25-817-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Capano, et al. Civ. No. 25-818-CFC; Chrustowski v. Roberts, et al.
Civ. No. 25-819-CFC; Chrustowski v. Dryher, et al. Civ. No. 25-820-CFC;
Chrustowski v. Christiana Care Hospital, et al. Civ. No. 25-905-CFC.
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

prior to service on Defendants.^ Of the adjudicated cases, most were dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim.^ In at least three prior actions, this Court
warned Plaintiff that future filings of a similar nature may result in sanctions,
including an injunction barring Plaintiff from initiating other actions in this Court
^ See RCA Middletown Post Office, Civ. No. 23-745-CFC; Chrustowski,
Civ. No. 23-746-CFC; Chrustowski, Civ. No. 23-803-CFC; NAACP-Derrick
Johnson, Civ. No. 23-804-CFC; Carney's Point Township, Civ. No. 23-858 CFC;
Johnson, Civ. No. 23-873-CFC; Cheeks, Civ. No. 23-887-CFC; Christian Life
Center, Civ. No. 23-888-CFC; USPS-Middletown Post Office,
Civ.No.23-1027-CFC; USPS, Civ. No. 23-1206-CFC; LifeHouse Church,
Civ. No. 24-35 CFC; Best Buy, Civ. No. 24-36-CFC; DeJoy, Civ. No. 24-37-CFC;
Scull, Civ. No. 24-38-CFC; Delaware Department ofLabor, Civ. No. 24-407-CFC;
Equal Employment Services, Civ. No. 24-418-CFC; Officer Dryer,
Civ. No. 24-431-CFC
Civ. No. 24-555-CFC
Civ. No. 24-814-CFC
Citi Bank Financial, Civ. No. 24-554-CFC; Bishop,
Chrustowski, Civ. No. 24-813-CFC; Greiner,
Sebell, Civ. No. 24-1197-CFC; Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Civ. No. 24-1247-CFC; Capano Management Co,
Civ. No. 25-487-CFC; Mieczkowski, Civ. No. 25-528-CFC; Roberts,
Civ. No. 25-815-CFC; Dryher, Civ. No. 25-816-CFC; Rally's Casino,
Civ. No. 25-817-CFC; Capano, Civ. No. 25-818-CFC; Roberts,
Civ. No. 25-819-CFC; Dryher, Civ. No. 25-820-CFC.
^ See Chrustowski, Civ. No. 23-746-CFC; Chrustowski, Civ. No. 23-803-CFC;
Carney's Point Township, Civ. No. 23-858-CFC; Johnson, Civ. No. 23-873-CFC;
LifeHouse Church, Civ. No. 24-35-CFC; Best Buy, Civ. No. 24-36-CFC; DeJoy,
Civ. No. 24-37-CFC; Scull, Civ. No. 24-38-CFC; Delaware Department ofLabor,
Civ. No. 24-407-CFC; Equal Employment Services, Civ. No. 24-418-CFC; Officer
Dryer, Civ. No. 24-431-CFC; Citi Bank Financial, Civ. No. 24-554-CFC;
Chrustowski, Civ. No. 24-813-CFC; Greiner, Civ. No. 24-814-CFC; Sebell,
Civ. No. 24-1197-CFC; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Civ. No. 24-1247-CFC; Capano Management Co, Civ. No. 25-487-CFC.
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

without first obtaining permission from a judge ofthis Court."^ Nevertheless, four of
Plaintiffs twelve new complaints present claims that are duplicative of those
previously adjudicated^ On this basis alone, four of Plaintiffs twelve new
complaints warrant dismissal upon screening.
Briefly reviewing the eight remaining complaints in chronological order of
filing, first. Plaintiff alleges discrimination, and possibly identity theft, from 2006 to
the present, by four individuals in New Jersey, one of whom shares a last name with
Plaintiff.^ Plaintiffs claims appear to arise from her dissatisfaction with the outcome
of a 2006 New Jersey employment discrimination suit. Plaintiff believes that
attomeys and law enforcement in New Jersey were also involved in discriminating
See Equal Employment Services, Civ. No. 24-418-CFC; Officer Dryer,
Civ. No. 24-431-CFC; Sebell, Civ. No. 24-1197-CFC.
^ Compare USPS-Middletown, Civ. No. 25-782-CFC (suing the Postal Service and
others for employment discrimination and labor and wage claims arising from
Plaintiffs employment in 2022 and 2023); Hubbard, Civ. No. 25-786-CFC (suing
Postal Service employees based on same allegations), with DeJoy, Civ. No. 24-37-
CFC (dismissing complaint and denying motion to amend complaint based on same
allegations for failure to state a claim). Compare Burrows, Civ. No. 25-783-CFC
(suing EEOC employees for adjudication of Plaintiffs employment discrimination
claim against Postal Service), with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Civ. No. 24-1247-CFC (dismissing same claims as frivolous). Compare Johnson,
Civ. No. 25-784-CFC (suing NAACP CEO and others for unrelated instances
between 2006 and 2023 when Plaintiff believes she was mistreated or disadvantaged
by not being a person of color), with Johnson, Civ. No. 23-873-CFC (dismissing
same claims as frivolous).
^ See Boos, Civ. No. 25-587-CFC.
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

against her. Plaintiff also believes that things were taken from her to unfairly
advantage other individuals. Based on the foregoing. Plaintiff seeks $20,000,000.
These claims are clearly baseless, they rely on indisputably meritless legal theories,
or they are based on fantastic or delusional factual scenarios. As such, they are
frivolous and warrant dismissal.
Second, Plaintiff alleges abuse, harassment, identity theft, and other criminal
offenses, in 2002, 2006, and 2024, in Pennsville, New Jersey, by ten individuals,
who appear to be former neighbors of Plaintiff.^ Plaintiff believes that these
individuals caused Plaintiff to be discriminated against by law enforcement and
caused Plaintiff to be harassed by members of minority groups. Plaintiff seeks
$20,000,000 based on the foregoing. These are frivolous claims, warranting
dismissal.
Third, Plaintiff alleges that the United States Supreme Court and two
individuals based in New Jersey and Washington, D.C., respectively, discriminated
against Plaintiff on unspecified dates.^ It appears that Plaintiffs claims arise from
an undesirable outcome in a legal case involving Plaintiff. Based on the foregoing,
See Hassler, Civ. No. 25-606-CFC.
See U.S. Supreme Court, Civ. No. 25-715-CFC.
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

Plaintiff seeks $20,000,000 and criminal charges against all Defendants. These
claims are frivolous and warrant dismissal.
Fourth, Plaintiff alleges that, on unspecified dates, in New Jersey and
Delaware, four individuals, who appear to be either church leaders or church
members, stole Plaintiffs personal information and $30.00 to help disadvantaged
persons and members of minority groups.^ Based on the foregoing. Plaintiff seeks
$20,000,000. These claims are frivolous and warrant dismissal.
Fifth, Plaintiff alleges harassment on May 30, 2025, in Middletown,
Delaware, by the Appoquinimink Library and several of its employees.'® Plaintiff
alleges that a library employee falsely accused Plaintiff of cursing at her, and then
Plaintiff was told to leave the library, or the police would be called. The pleading
mentions several times that the library employee was a black woman. Plaintiff
believes that this employee was responsible for having Plaintiff banned from the
library. Based on the foregoing. Plaintiff seeks $20,000,000. These claims are
frivolous and warrant dismissal.
Sixth, Plaintiff alleges discrimination in 2006 and 2022 by four individuals,
who appear to be National Labor Relations Board employees in Philadelphia,
^ See Corkum, Civ. No. 25-716-CFC.
See Appoquinimink Library, Civ. No. 25-717-CFC.
10
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

Pennsylvania.'' It appears that Plaintiffs claims arise from an undesirable outcome
in a case initiated by Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes these individuals committed theft,
discriminated, and retaliated against her. Plaintiffs pleading does not provide
additional information to support these claims, but it does reflect that Plaintiff
believes her family members,church members,and strangers (specifically, members
of minority groups) were involved. These claims are frivolous and warrant
dismissal.
Seventh, Plaintiff alleges negligence by Shelly Chrustowski and three other
individuals or entities in Delaware, in or around February 2025.'^ According to the
pleading, there was a physical altercation between Plaintiff and Shelly Chrustowski
on February 20, 2025, but Shelly Chrustowski faced no legal repercussions
following the incident. Additionally, Plaintiff believes Shelly Chrustowski and
others have committed identity theft and other criminal offenses against Plaintiff.
The pleading does not specify an amount in controversy, and all parties appear to be
citizens ofDelaware. These claims are frivolous and warrant dismissal. This Court
notes that it has dismissed as frivolous at least three prior complaints filed by
"See Andrews, Civ. No. 25-718-CFC.
See Chrustowski, Civ. No. 25-785-CFC.
11
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

Plaintiff, alleging identity theft, retaliation, threats, harassment, and assault by
Shelly Chrustowski.'^
Last, Plaintiff alleges negligence by four hospitals or medical treatment
centers in Delaware, and at least six medical providers, for which Plaintiff seeks
$20,000,000.'"^ The pleading provides no dates of occurrence and largely fail to
specify which Defendant is alleged to have done what. Plaintiff believes that she
was treated with diluted medications and that her personal information was stolen to
unlawfully provide other individuals (specifically, members of minority groups)
with prescription medications instead of Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff was
dissatisfied with some medical care that she received, and she believes she was
misinformed and ill-advised when receiving care. For example. Defendants did not
advise Plaintiffto seek a handicap parking placard,they refused to fill out Plaintiffs
workers compensation forms, they required Plaintiff to return for multiple
appointments, and they provided several treatments that were painful, and,
ultimately, ineffective. Unrelatedly, Plaintiffs pleading also mentions being
harassed by church members. These claims are frivolous and warrant dismissal.
See Chrustowski, Civ. No. 23-746-CFC; Citi Bank Financial,
Civ. No. 24-CV-554-CFC; Chrustowski, Civ. No. 24-cv-813-CFC.
See Christiana Care Hospital, Civ. No. 25-905-CFC.
12
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

Plaintiffs above pleadings raise vague, unsupported, and,frequently, undated
or stale claims of discrimination, harassment, assault, and identity theft, as well as
other related civil violations and criminal offenses, by Plaintiffs family members,
neighbors, church members, former employers and coworkers, public institutions
and their employees, the NAACP, and strangers, often identified as members of
minority groups. These twelve new pleadings are of a similar nature to those
previously filed by Plaintiff, which this Court dismissed as frivolous or for failure to
state a claim, warning Plaintiff that continuing to file such pleadings may result in
sanctions against Plaintiff. At this time, the imposition of filing restrictions is
warranted by Plaintiffs continuous abuse of the judicial process by filing meritless
and repetitive actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651; Matter of Packer Ave. Assoc.,
884 F.2d 745, 747(3d Cir.1989).
NOW THEREFORE,at Wilmington on this Nineteenth Day of May in 2026,
it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The complaints filed in the twelve above-captioned cases are
DISMISSED as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE all the above-captioned civil
actions, except for the most recently initiated case, Chrustowski v. Christiana Care
Hospital, et al. Civ. No. 25-905-CFC.
13
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

3. On or before June 23, 2026, in Chrustowski v. Christiana Care
Hospital, et al., Civ. No. 25-905-CFC, only, Plaintiff shall show cause why the
following proposed injunctive relief should not issue:
A. Plaintiff is hereby enjoined from filing, without pnor
authorization of the Court, any complaint, lawsuit, or petition for writ of
mandamus, raising claims or issues regarding discrimination, harassment,
assault, identity theft, or related civil violations and criminal offenses.
B. Plaintiff must file a motion for leave to file with any new
complaint, lawsuit, or petition for writ of mandamus that she proposes to file,
and she must attach a copy of this memorandum order to it.
C. As an exhibit to any motion seeking such leave, there must be
attached a declaration prepared pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a sworn
affidavit certifying that (a) the document raises a new issue that has never
been previously raised by the filer in this or any other court, (b) the claim or
issue is not frivolous, (c) the document is not filed in bad faith, and (d) a
statement as to the basis for jurisdiction and venue in the District of Delaware.
D. The Court shall deny any motion for leave to file if the proposed
document is frivolous, vexatious, or harassing. The failure to comply with
this memorandum order shall be sufficient grounds for this court to deny any
motion for leave to file.
14
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

E. No document submitted by Plaintiff shall be filed prior to
obtaining leave to file unless the document is specifically identified as a
motion for leave to file, and unless the document contains an affidavit or
sworn declaration as required by this memorandum order, and a copy of this
memorandum order.
F. The Clerk's Office shall not accept any filing fees, cover sheets,
applications for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees, summonses, or
U.S. Marshals forms, in connection with a motion for leave to file, unless and
until leave is granted.
Chief Judge
15
Case 1:25-cv-00587-CFC Document 7 Filed 05/19/26 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>