Opinion
No. 3-05-MC-011-M.
February 8, 2005
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Fred A. Dixon, a Texas prisoner who has been barred from filing any future lawsuits in this district without paying the statutory filing fee or obtaining prior authorization from a district judge or magistrate judge, seeks leave to file a civil action in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated herein, his motion should be denied.
I.
Plaintiff alleges that he was beaten and raped while incarcerated in the Brazoria County Jail in Angelton, Texas. Because of his long history of filing frivolous lawsuits, plaintiff has been barred from filing any civil actions in the Southern District of Texas without prior approval. See Dixon v. State of Texas, No. G-98-440 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 1999). Plaintiff also has been sanctioned by at least two judges in this district for malicious and vexatious conduct. On January 28, 2004, Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn prohibited plaintiff "from filing any future civil actions in the Northern District of Texas, either directly or indirectly by way of transfer, without first paying the required filing fee or obtaining prior authorization from a district judge or magistrate judge." Dixon v. Lake Charles, La. Sheriff's Dep't, No. 3-03-CV-2232-M (N.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2004). Earlier that month, Judge Ed Kinkeade barred plaintiff from filing any future civil actions in this district "unless accompanied by the required $150.00 filing fee or by a motion for permission to file setting out good cause as to why the complaint sets out a colorable basis for relief and why venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas." Dixon v. Angelton Parole Dep't, No. 3-03-CV-2790-K (N.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2004) (emphasis in original). Undeterred, plaintiff now seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in yet another civil action challenging the conditions of his confinement at the Brazoria County Jail.
Although the Fifth Circuit has held that one district court may enforce a sanction order of another district court pursuant to a local rule or miscellaneous order, see Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1068 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 2044 (1999), the Northern District of Texas has not adopted a rule giving reciprocal effect to sanction orders from other courts against non-prisoners. Instead, Miscellaneous Order No. 48 provides, in pertinent part:
[T]his Court will observe and enforce sanctions imposed by another federal court in Texas involving Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmates who file pleadings in this District, unless the sanctioned inmate establishes a change of circumstances or otherwise demonstrates that enforcing such previously imposed sanctions would be unjust. Misc. Order No. 49 (1993) (emphasis added). It does not appear that plaintiff was incarcerated when he was sanctioned in the Southern District of Texas. Nor is plaintiff currently an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
II.
Venue in a civil rights action is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). See Davis v. Louisiana State University, 876 F.2d 412, 413 (5th Cir. 1989). This statute provides that civil cases not founded solely on diversity of citizenship must be brought in the judicial district where: (1) the defendant resides; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) where any defendant may be found if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The court sua sponte notes that the Brazoria County Jail is located in Angelton, Texas, which lies within the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas. Id. § 124(b)(1). Plaintiff makes no attempt to show why venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas. Consequently, he should not be permitted to file suit in this district.
III.
A court has an obligation to protect the orderly administration of justice and can issue an injunction to discharge that duty. Urban v. United Nations, 768 F.2d 1497, 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Sanctions also are appropriate when a pro se litigant has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11; In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Litigants who abuse 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." Free v. United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). Appropriate sanctions may include restrictions on the ability to file future lawsuits without leave of court and monetary sanctions. See generally, McCampbell v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 982 F.Supp. 445, 448-49 (N.D. Tex. 1997) (discussing sanctions available to deter and punish pro se litigants for abusing the judicial system by filing multiple frivolous lawsuits). The range of appropriate sanctions depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Id. at 447.Plaintiff already has been barred from filing any future civil actions in this district "unless accompanied by the required $150.00 filing fee or by a motion for permission to file setting out good cause as to why the complaint sets out a colorable basis for relief and why venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas." Dixon, No. 3-03-CV-2790-K. After this order was entered, plaintiff filed three more cases in this district. It is apparent from the pleadings in all three cases that venue is not proper in this district. In order to deter similar conduct in the future, plaintiff should be sanctioned $100.00 and ordered to pay this sanction to the district clerk before he even can seek leave of court to file any other lawsuits in this district. See Saunders v. Bush, 15 F.3d 64, 68 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2678 (1994) (district court did not abuse discretion in imposing monetary sanctions against pro se litigant after prior warning); Scott v. Sims, 2004 WL 2203249 at *3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2004), rec. adopted, 2004 WL 2402532 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2004) (requiring pro se litigant who filed 26 civil actions over three year period to pay $1,000 sanction before seeking leave to file any other lawsuits).
The docket reflects that plaintiff has filed no less than 26 civil actions in this district after he was barred from filing suit in the Southern District of Texas. Four of those cases were dismissed as frivolous. Fifteen cases were dismissed for want of prosecution. Another four were transferred to the Southern District of Texas. Three cases, including this one, remain pending.
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a civil action in forma pauperis should be denied. In addition, plaintiff should be sanctioned $100.00. This sanction must be paid to the United States District Clerk for the Northern District of Texas before plaintiff can seek leave of court to file any future lawsuits in this district.