Opinion
Civil Action No: 01-0661 Section: "R" (2).
April 29, 2005
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Angela Boutte moves the Court to order the defendants to pay her in accordance with a "judgment" signed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and Boutte further moves to waive interest on the judgment. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Boutte's motions and ENJOINS Boutte from filing further pleadings in this action without first receiving leave of Court.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2001, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the Court dismiss Boutte's action with prejudice because it violated Rule 11(b)(2). Specifically, the magistrate judge found that Boutte's claims had no basis in law. As a result, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss the action with prejudice as the appropriate sanction. On July 2, 2001, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. Boutte appealed the Court's dismissal of the action, and on December 20, 2001, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Boutte's appeal as frivolous.
Boutte has persisted in filing pleadings in the action even though the Court dismissed it almost four years ago. For example, Boutte moved the Court for a temporary injunction and to annul the judgment in November of 2002. The Court denied the motions for lack of jurisdiction. In December of 2004, Boutte moved the Court to enter a judgment. The Court again denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. At that time, the Court noted that Boutte's pleading was frivolous, and the Court cautioned Boutte that it will sanction her for filing further frivolous pleadings. On April 6, 2005, Boutte moved the Court to amend the judgment. Again, the Court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. On April 21, 2005, Boutte moved the Court to order the defendants to pay her in accordance with a judgment signed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court denied the motion.
II. CURRENT MOTIONS
Boutte now moves the Court to order the defendants to pay her in accordance with a judgment signed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. She submits exactly the same motion that the Court denied a few days ago. Boutte also moves the Court to waive taxes on her monetary damages in connection with the judgment. As the Court has explained on several occasions before, the Court dismissed Boutte's action almost four years ago, the case is closed, and the Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider Boutte's motions. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motions.
III. SANCTIONS
The Fifth Circuit has observed that sanctions are appropriate when a litigant files "motion after motion . . . lacking in substance." Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819 (5th Cir. 1988). In light of the posture of the action and the Court's previous orders and warning, the Court finds Boutte's current pleadings to be frivolous on their face. Moreover, Court finds that Boutte has engaged in a pattern of filing frivolous pleadings. Accordingly, the Court enjoins Boutte from filing any further pleadings in this action unless she is first granted leave of Court to do so. See Taylor v. Maple Avenue Economic Dev. Corp., NO. CIV. A. 302CV0791D, 2002 WL 1758189, at *6 (N.D. Tex. July 26, 2002) (enjoining the plaintiff from filing any further actions without leave of court as a result of frivolous pleadings); Eaves v. Doniger, NO. CIV. A. H-00-1255, 2001 WL 169288, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Jan 9, 2001) (recommending that the plaintiff request leave before filing any further pleadings in the action as a result of frivolous pleadigs); Moody v. Smith, 105 B.R. 368, 373 (S.D. Tex. 1989) (permanently enjoining litigant from filing any further pleadings in the action as a result of frivolous pleadings).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Boutte's motions and ENJOINS Boutte from filing further pleadings in this action. The Court DIRECTS the clerk to refuse future pleadings from Boutte with reference to this action unless the pleadings are accompanied by an order of this Court granting Boutte leave to file.