Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1244
10-09-2019
FREDERICK BANKS, Petitioner, v. ORLANDO HARPER, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss this action because Petitioner Frederick Banks ("Banks") is subject to vexatious-litigant orders and did not receive the required authorization to file this lawsuit.
II. REPORT
Banks, who is a well-known litigant in this Court, is a pretrial detainee awaiting trial in the criminal case of United States v. Banks, 2:15-cr-168 (W.D. Pa.) (Hornak, C.J.). He has filed numerous frivolous, harassing and duplicative civil lawsuits in this Court. By orders entered on December 8, 2015, in Banks v. Pope Francis, et al., 2:15-cv-1400 (W.D. Pa.) (Bissoon, J.) and Banks v. Hornak, et al., 2:15-cv-1385 (W.D. Pa.) (Bissoon, J.), and as expanded in an order entered on October 3, 2017, in United States v. Miller, 2:15-cr-174 (Bissoon, J.), Banks was designated as a vexatious litigant and enjoined from filing, without prior authorization of the Court, any complaint, lawsuit or petition for a writ of mandamus. In accordance with the vexatious-litigant orders, any submission made by Banks, either on his own behalf or on behalf of any other existing or putative litigant, must be returned to him, unfiled, unless he first had received judicial authorization to file it. "The ONLY carve-out from the vexatious-litigant orders is Banks's active criminal matter [at 1:15-cr-168] because any decisions in that matter are reserved for the presiding Judge [Chief Judge Hornak]." Order in Banks, et al. v. Postmaster, et al., 2:18-cv-1604 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2019) (Bissoon, J.) (emphasis in original).
It was noted in the vexatious-litigant orders that by December 8, 2015, Banks had filed in excess of 75 separate lawsuits before the Western District of Pennsylvania (or subject to removal from state court) since February 2005.
On September 30, 2019, the Clerk of Court received from Banks a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Because he did not receive the required authorization to file this lawsuit, the Court must dismiss it.
Banks did not pay the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. --------
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed, as required by the vexatious-litigant orders. Pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Civil Rules, Banks is allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Failure to do so will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Dated: October 9, 2019
s/ Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE
United States Magistrate Judge