Opinion
No. 3:04-CV-2701-M.
January 7, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
On December 22, 2004, plaintiff filed the instant civil action against Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and a DART employee. Although Clerk's Office personnel accepted the filing from plaintiff, such filing should not have been accepted due to prior sanctions issued against plaintiff. Of the fifteen cases previously filed by plaintiff, at least seven were dismissed as frivolous and several were dismissed with the imposition of progressively harsher sanctions. The Court will only address the most relevant of the imposed sanctions.
Judge Fitzwater thoroughly reviewed plaintiff's litigation history through July 2002 in his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 26, 2002, in Taylor v. Maple Ave. Economic Dev. Corp., No. 3:02-CV-0791-D (N.D. Tex.).
On September 14, 2001, the Court barred plaintiff from "filing any more suits in this Court without prepayment of the $150 filing fee unless he first obtains an order of the Court permitting him to file the suit." See Taylor v. Lindsay, 3:01-CV-1510-M (N.D. Tex.) (Judgment signed Sept. 14, 2001). The Court directed the Clerk to "return unfiled . . . any complaints which are submitted without the $150 filing fee or a Court order granting him leave to file the complaint." Id.
On March 15, 2002, the Court found plaintiff in civil contempt of court, and entered an order that prohibits him "from filing any suit in federal court without the prior written consent of United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr. of this Court." See Taylor v. Solis, 3:02-CV-0398-H (N.D. Tex.) (Order of Mar. 15, 2002).
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 26, 2002, in Taylor v. Maple Ave. Economic Dev. Corp., No. 3:02-CV-0791-D (N.D. Tex.), the Court enjoined plaintiff "from filing any lawsuit in any court against any party unless he first seeks and obtains leave to do so from this court by filing a motion for leave under this civil action number and attaching a copy of his proposed state court petition or federal court complaint." The Court further admonished plaintiff that, "if he persists in disregarding this court's orders and the injunction entered today, the court will refer this matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas to consider prosecuting him for criminal contempt of court."
II. UNFILING OF DOCUMENTS
In this case, plaintiff has paid no filing fee. He has provided no order from the Court which permits him to file this action. Nor has he filed a motion for leave in Cause No. 3:02-CV-0791-D that requests leave to file the instant action. Such failures violate the sanction orders entered by this Court. Pursuant to the sanction order entered in Taylor v. Lindsay, 3:01-CV-1510-M (N.D. Tex.), the Court should direct the Clerk of Court to unfile the documents filed in this case and return them to plaintiff for his failures to prepay the $150 filing fee or obtain an order granting him leave to file the complaint.
III. ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS
The Court possesses the inherent power "to protect the efficient and orderly administration of justice and . . . to command respect for the court's orders, judgments, procedures, and authority." In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993). Included in such inherent power is "the power to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices." Id. Sanctions may be appropriate when a pro se litigant has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir. 1993). Pro se litigants have "no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets." Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). "Abusers of the judicial process are not entitled to sue and appeal without paying the normal filing fees — indeed, are not entitled to sue and appeal, period. Abuses of process are not merely not to be subsidized; they are to be sanctioned." Free v. United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989).Plaintiff has pursued numerous actions in this Court — none of which have entitled him to any relief. He has received a series of progressively harsh sanctions for his vexatious conduct. The Court has previously admonished him about potential prosecution for criminal contempt should he persist in disregarding orders of this Court and the injunction entered in Taylor v. Maple Ave. Economic Dev. Corp., No. 3:02-CV-0791-D (N.D. Tex.). Although the Court could refer this matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas to consider prosecuting plaintiff for criminal contempt of court in accordance with the July 26, 2002 sanction order, nearly two and a half years have elapsed since that sanction order. Plaintiff thereafter filed no other federal actions in this Court (or state actions that were subsequently removed to this Court), thus ceasing his litigious conduct to some extent until he filed the instant action in December 2004. Under these circumstances, the Court will not make the referral for criminal contempt prosecution at this time.
Nevertheless, the Court should remind and again sternly admonish plaintiff that the orders of the court and the injunction entered in Taylor v. Maple Ave. Economic Dev. Corp., No. 3:02-CV-0791-D (N.D. Tex.) are still in effect, and that further abuses of the litigation process and disregard of the Court's orders will result in additional sanctions, including referral of the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas to consider prosecuting him for criminal contempt of court.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court DIRECT the Clerk of Court to UNFILE the documents filed in this action and RETURN them to plaintiff with a copy of the Judgment entered in Taylor v. Lindsay, 3:01-CV-1510-M (N.D. Tex.) and the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in Taylor v. Maple Ave. Economic Dev. Corp., No. 3:02-CV-0791-D (N.D. Tex.). It is further recommended that the Court warn plaintiff that additional sanctions, including a referral for prosecution for criminal contempt, will be imposed for further abuses of the litigation process and disregard for orders or injunctions of the court.