Terry v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Henry R. Terry,
Plaintiff,
-v-
Bank of America, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
2:26-cv-2625
(NJC) (ST)
ORDER
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY, United States District Judge:
By Order dated December 23, 2025, the Court addressed ten letter motions and additional
replies filed by Henry R. Terry, acting pro se, seeking myriad relief. (See Order, ECF No. 66
(ruling on Pl. Mots. ECF Nos. 44, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65.) The Court ordered that:
Terry shall file any opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss by January 21,
2026. Terry’s opposition shall be no more than forty (40) pages in length and
shall address all motions in one brief. Defendants shall serve any reply to their
motion to dismiss by February 4, 2026. There shall be no further extensions and
no further briefing on the motions to dismiss once Defendants serve their replies.
(Id. at 2–3.) Notwithstanding that clear directive, within the span of two months, Terry has filed
four more motions in addition to filing the opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF
No. 73). (See ECF Nos. 69, 72, 74, and 80.)1 Further on February 9, 2026, Terry filed a
1 Two of Terry’s motions seek leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 72, 74.)
However, by Order dated August 14, 2025, the Court granted Terry leave to file an amended
complaint by August 22, 2025 (Elec. Order, Aug. 14, 2025), and, after that deadline expired and
Terry did not file an amended complaint, the Court set a briefing schedule for Defendants’
anticipated motions to dismiss and declared that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is the operative
pleading. (Elec. Order, Aug. 27, 2025.) After the Defendants filed their motions to dismiss (ECF
Nos. 30, 31), Terry sought an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 32.) By
Order dated September 21, 2025, the Court granted Terry’s motion and permitted him to file an
Case 2:25-cv-02625-NJC-ST Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
document entitled “Amended Second Notice of Removal” seeking to again remove to this Court
a post-judgment mortgage foreclosure proceeding commenced in 2009 (the “State Case”) in the
New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County (“State Court”) under Index No. 016603/2009.2
By Remand Order dated February 19, 2026, this Court remanded the improperly removed
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Bank Of America, N.A. et al v. Terry, No.
2:26-cv-733 (E.D.N.Y.), Remand Order, ECF No. 7.
As this procedural history makes clear, Terry has abused the judicial process and has
occupied a significant amount of time and resources of this Court and of Defendants by filing
repetitive motions on issues that have previously been decided. Thus, Terry is now barred from
further filing on this docket pending the resolution of Terry’s existing motions (ECF Nos. 69, 72,
74, and 80) as well as Defendants’ fully-briefed motions to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF
Nos. 42, 43) except as set forth below. This temporary injunction is necessary to ease the
substantial burden placed on the Court by the continuous stream of repetitive motions Terry has
filed. During the pendency of this temporary injunction, no further filings will be accepted
without first obtaining leave of the Court. Leave may only be sought in a letter no longer than
amended complaint no later than October 8, 2025. (Elec. Order, Sept. 21, 2025.) Terry then
sought an extension of the deadline to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 34), and the Court
granted that motion giving Terry through October 29, 2025. (See Elec. Order, Oct. 3, 2026.) The
Court made clear that: “There will be no further extensions of Plaintiff's deadline to file an
amended complaint.” (Id.) (emphasis in original). After Terry timely filed an amended
complaint (ECF No. 35), which was made after Defendants had already filed their motions to
dismiss (ECF Nos. 30, 31), the Court set a briefing schedule for any motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. (Elec. Order, Oct. 10, 2025.) Accordingly, Terry’s motions seeking leave to
file a second amended complaint are dismissed for the reasons to be set forth in a separate order.
2 See Bank Of America, N.A. et al v. Terry, No. 2:26-cv-733 (E.D.N.Y.), Second Not. Removal
at 1, ECF No. 1; see also Bank of America, NA v. Public Administrator of Suffo[l]k County as
Administrator of the Estate of Alice G. Zahnd et al, No. 2:25-cv-2729 (E.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1-1
at 2–10 (Compl. dated May 18, 2009), 11–13 (Answer dated June 30, 2009).)2
Case 2:25-cv-02625-NJC-ST Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
100 words that describes the motion Terry intends to file. A second request may not be filed
while a prior request is pending.
The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to return to Terry, without filing, any
submissions presented for filing in this case other than the letter described above. See Immerso v.
U.S. Dep’t of Lab., No. 20-4064, 2022 WL 17333083, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 30, 2022) (“The court
correctly found that [Plaintiffs] acted in bad faith in making numerous frivolous motions and in
making egregious and slanderous accusations . . . The filing requirements were an appropriate
sanction in this circumstance.”); George v. N.Y. State Division of Parole, 685 F. App’x 30, 30
(2d Cir. 2017) (“A district court may, in its discretion, impose a filing injunction if confronted
with extraordinary circumstances, such as a demonstrated history of frivolous and vexatious
litigation.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). The Court considers the briefing for the
motions to dismiss closed; the Court will decide the pending motions. Neither side may make
any additional filing in this case absent Court order.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith. Therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of
any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court shall also serve a copy of this Order on Terry at his address of record
and shall note such mailing on the docket.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
February 19, 2026
/s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02625-NJC-ST Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>