Opinion
1:17-cv-00087-FDW
07-06-2017
RAYMOND DAKIM HARRIS JOINER, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE SOLOMON, Defendant.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion. Plaintiff Raymond Dakim Harris Joiner, also known as Sin York City, is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina. He has filed dozens of civil actions in the federal district courts of North Carolina, alleging violations of his civil rights by various governmental entities and officials. See Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, PACER Case Locator, www.pacer.gov (search "Joiner, Raymond" in North Carolina) (last viewed June 29, 2017).
The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") provides, in part, that if a prisoner has had three prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, the prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis but must pay up-front all filing fees for his subsequent suits, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 609 (4th Cir. 2013), as amended (Oct. 22, 2013). Plaintiff has had the following civil actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, and/or for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted: Joiner v. Solomon , et al. , No. 1:17-cv-147-FDW (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2017) (frivolous, failure to state a claim); Joiner v. Dep't of Public Safety et al. , No. 1:13-cv-933-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. Jan. 18, 2017) (frivolous, failure to state a claim); Joiner v. Solomon , No. 1:16-cv-396-FDW (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2016) (failure to state a claim); Joiner v. Ingram , No. 1:14-cv-672-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 24, 2016) (frivolous, malicious, failure to state a claim); Joiner v. Dep't of Public Safety , No. 1:13-cv-449-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. April 11, 2016) (frivolous); Joiner v. Friel , et al. , No. 1:13-cv-448-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. April 11, 2016) (frivolous, malicious, failure to state a claim); Joiner v. Forsyth County Detention Center , No. 1:13-cv-931-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. Dec. 30, 2015) (failure to state a claim); Joiner v. Keever , No. 1:13-cv-636-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2014) (failure to state a claim); Joiner v. Maness , No. 1:11-cv-71-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. Feb. 17, 2012) (frivolous, malicious, failure to state a claim); Joiner v. Maness , et al. , No. 1:11-cv-72-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. Nov. 10, 2011) (frivolous, malicious, failure to state a claim); and Joiner v. Maness , No. 1:11-cv-72-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. Nov. 10, 2011) (frivolous, malicious, failure to state a claim).
The PLRA "three-strikes" rule was enacted to bar prisoners like Plaintiff, who have filed prior frivolous litigation in a federal court, from pursuing certain types of federal civil litigation without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has had the following civil cases dismissed under the "three-strikes" rule: Joiner v. Solomon , No. 5:16-CT-3261-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 2017); Joiner v. Herring , No. 5:16-ct-03210-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 2017); Joiner v. North Carolina , No. 5:14-ct-3278-D (E.D.N.C. April 28, 2015); Sin York City v. N.C. Dep't of Public Safety , No. 5:14-ct-03262-D (E.D.N.C. April 28, 2015); and Sin York City v. North Carolina , 5:14-cv-00557-D (E.D.N.C. April 28, 2015). The above-captioned action, No. 1:17-cv-87, likewise was dismissed under § 1915(g). (Doc. Nos. 6, 7.)
Based upon his prior litigation history, it appears likely Plaintiff will continue to file frivolous civil actions as long as he is permitted to do so. Litigants do not have an absolute and unconditional right of access to federal courts in order to prosecute frivolous, successive, abusive or vexatious legal actions, however. See e.g., In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943, 945 (4th Cir. 1997). Courts possess the inherent power to control the judicial process and to redress conduct that abuses that process. Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk is directed not to file any further documents or purported pleadings from Raymond Dakim Harris Joiner, also known as Sin York City, unless they are accompanied by the entire applicable filing fee.
2. The Clerk shall forward any proposed filing that is not accompanied by the entire filing fee to the Court for an in camera determination of whether the proposed filing:
a. falls under the exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)'s prohibition on proceeding in forma pauperis; or
b. is an otherwise proper pleading.
3. Unless the Court finds that the proposed filing constitutes proper pleadings, it shall be returned to the sender.
Signed: July 6, 2017
/s/_________
Frank D. Whitney
Chief United States District Judge