Hinton v. Supportkids, Inc.

Full title: KENNETH HINTON v. SUPPORTKIDS, INC. AND STONIE CLARK

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

Date published: Jun 11, 2009

A-09-CA-284 LY (W.D. Tex. Jun. 11, 2009)

Opinion

A-09-CA-284 LY.

June 11, 2009

ORDER

ANDREW AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Clerk's Doc. No. 1). The District Court referred the motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a determination on the merits pursuant to a standing order of the Court and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C to the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

I. General Background

On April 3, 2000, Kenneth Hinton ("Hinton") was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on eight counts of bank fraud, interstate transportation of stolen checks, second-degree burglary, and first-degree theft. See 1:99-cr-00211-RMU-1. The jury found that while working as a legal assistant at a law firm, Hinton stole checks from several of the firm's attorneys and used the stolen checks to deposit funds into various bank accounts he had previously opened using stolen identities. On June 26, 2000, the District Court for the District of Columbia sentenced Hinton to six years of imprisonment, followed by a five year term of supervised release, a fine and an order of restitution. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Hinton's conviction and sentence on May 25, 2001. See United States v. Hinton, 12 Fed. Appx. 11 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Subsequently, Hinton filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied on August 5, 2003. See Hinton v. United States, 2003 WL 21854935 (D.D.C. Aug. 05, 2003) (denying motion for post-conviction relief under § 2255 and 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k)). Hinton was also denied permission to file a subsequent § 2255 motion. See In re Hinton, 125 Fed. Appx. 317 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (denying motion for leave to file successive motion to vacate conviction).

On December 24, 2003, Hinton commenced a term of supervised release in the District of Columbia. While serving his term of supervised release, Hinton was convicted by a Maryland court of assault and burglary. Accordingly, on May 1, 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia revoked Hinton's term of supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment. See Doc. # 138 in 1:99-cr-211. The Court of Appeals affirmed Hinton's sentence. See United States v. Hinton, 275 Fed. Appx. 19 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

In addition to his criminal appeals, Hinton has filed more than 50 federal civil lawsuits (both while he was incarcerated and after his release) against a host of defendants, the vast majority of which have been dismissed as frivolous of for failure to state a claim under § 1915.¹

1 See e.g., Hinton v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., 3:09-cv-0594, 2009 WL 704139 (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2009) (dismissing case as frivolous and noting that Hinton "is no stranger to federal civil litigation"); Hinton v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., 1:09-cv-04125 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (dismissing under § 1915 for filing a duplicative suit and warning that any appeal would not be taken in good faith); Hinton v. Peanut Corp. of Am., No. 6:09-cv-010 (W.D. Va. 2009) (dismissing case under § 1915 for lack of jurisdiction); Hinton v. Hearns, No. 1:08-cv-608, 2008 WL 2662974 (E.D. Va. July 02, 2008) (dismissing case under § 1915 for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction); Hinton v. Bangs, No. 08-628 (E.D. Va. 2008) (dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim); Hinton v. Williams, No. 04-7169, 2005 WL 263948 (C.A.D.C. Feb. 02, 2005) (dismissed for failure to prosecute); Hinton v. Williams, No. 02-357, 2005 WL 486137 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2005 (granting summary judgment against Hinton where he failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation); Hinton v. McCormick, 8:05-cv-02295 (D. Md. 2005) (dismissing case); Hinton v. Global Settlements, et al, 8:04-cv-03754 (D. Md. 2005) (dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction); Hinton v. United States, 91 Fed. Appx. 491 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal case where claims were not cognizable under the FTCA); Hinton v. Scott, No. CA-02-944-5-F, 110 Fed. Appx. 341 (4^th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court's dismissal of § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Hinton v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, No. 5:04-HC-786 (E.D.N.C. 2004) (dismissing case for filing substantially same claims as filed in his § 2241 Petition); Hinton v. Stein, 278 F. Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2003) (granting summary judgment in against Hinton for failure to demonstrate malpractice), appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute, 2004 WL 1052991 (C.A.D.C. May 10, 2004); Hinton v. Kenneth Lay, Et Al, H-02-591 (S.D. Tex. April 9, 2003) (dismissing case for failure to prosecute), aff'd, 205 Fed. Appx. 194 (5^th Cir. 2004); Hinton v. Shaw Pittman Potts Trowbridge, No. 02-0545, 257 F. Supp.2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003) (dismissing complaint on the grounds of absolute immunity and collateral estoppel); Hinton v. Lindauer, 2:03-cv-00551 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction); Hinton v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, No. 5:02-HC-574-H, 2003 WL 23521253 (E.D.N.C. May 28, 2003) (denying writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241); Hinton v. McDonald's Corp., AW-01-cv-1400 (S.D. Md. June 26, 2002) (dismissing case under § 1915 for failure to state a claim and barring Hinton from proceeding ifp in any future case while incarcerated pursuant to § 1915(g)); Hinton v. Daimler Chysler Corp., et al., No. 02-cv-40071 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (dismissing case as frivolous and noting that the lawsuit "is a product of a man with nothing better to do than sit in prison and file silly lawsuits); Hinton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 8:01-cv-1556 (D. Md. 2001) (dismissing case under § 1915); Hinton v. Phillip Morris, No. AW-01-cv-1329 (D. Md. 2001) (dismissed for lack of venue); Hinton v. Rajjoub, 4:01-cv-0795 (M.D. Pa. 2001) (order dismissing case under § 1915 and warning Hinton of sanctions if he files another frivolous suit); Hinton v. Oslund, 8:01-cv-3171-AW (D.C. Md. 2001) (dismissing case under § 1915); Hinton v. Purchase Plus Buyers Group, Inc., 8:00-cv-2877-AW (D. Md. 2001) (dismissing case for failure to effect service); Hinton v. Grigger, et al, No. 4:cv-00-1693 (M.D. Pa. 2000) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim).

Additionally, Hinton has seven other federal cases currently pending in various district courts as of the date of this lawsuit.²

2 See Hinton v. Trans Union LLC, et al, No. 09-cv-0170 (E.D. Va. filed 2-12-09); Hinton v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., 1:09-cv-2629 (S.D.N.Y. filed 3-23-09); Hinton v. Rudasil, 1:08-cv-1073 (D.D.C. filed 6/23/08); Hinton v. Rudasill, 8:08-cv-1460 (D. Md. filed 6-4-08); Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of America, 1:08-cv-778 (D.D.C. filed 5-06-08); Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of America, 1:08-cv-667 (D.D.C. filed 4-16-08); and Hinton v. Corrections Corp. of America, 1:08-cv-312 (D.D.C. filed 2-25-08).

Hinton has now filed the instant Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, requesting permission to proceed in the Western District of Texas without being required to prepay the filing fee. Hinton, currently a resident of Arlington, Virginia, is attempting to file this lawsuit against SupportKids, Inc. ("Defendant"), a Texas corporation, that is engaged in the business of providing private child support enforcement. Hinton alleges that Defendant unlawfully collected child support payments from his wages and earnings in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1673, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Consumer Protection Act. Hinton claims that he is unemployed and indigent and thus seeks leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the reasons discussed below, the Court HEREBY DENIES Hinton's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

II. Analysis

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) provides that "any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." (emphasis added). There is no absolute right to proceed in federal court without paying a filing fee in civil matters. Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969). "[R]ather, it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious." Id. Thus, courts have broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915. Hogan v. Midland County Comm'rs Court, 680 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5^th Cir. 1982). Federal courts also have "the inherent power" to protect their jurisdiction and to protect the public and the efficient administrative of justice from vexatious litigators by denying such litigators in forma pauperis status or by sanctioning them. Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 1986); Martin-Trigona v. Lavien, et al., 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2^nd Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1061 (1986). "No one, rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the judicial process. Flagrant abuse of the judicial process can enable one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants." Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285, 287 (5^th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1087 (1981). Thus, numerous federal courts have dealt with repeat frivolous litigators by denying them in forma pauperis status and/or by enjoining them from filing future lawsuits without first obtaining the court's permission. See e.g., In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989) (denying petitioner in forma pauperis status based on his history of filing frivolous petitions with the Court); Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that an order requiring leave of court before plaintiffs file any further complaints is the proper method for handling the complaints of prolific litigators); Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359-60 (5th Cir. 1986) (affirming order enjoining repeat litigator from filing future actions and noting that "one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets"); Urban v. United Nations, et al., 768 F.2d 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (enjoining repeat litigator from filing any civil action in any federal court without first obtaining leave of that court).

As detailed above, Hinton has a lengthy history of filing frivolous suits in various federal courts throughout the country. See Note 1. Many of these courts have recognized that Hinton has repeatedly abused the judicial process and some have even barred further filings by him.³ Despite these warnings, Hinton has continued to clog the federal court system with frivolous lawsuits. In light of Hinton's litigation history and based upon the foregoing caselaw, the Court will use its "inherent power" to protect the efficient administration of justice and will HEREBY DENY Hinton's Application for Leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis (Clerk's Docket No. 1). In addition, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS THE CLERK to not accept any new complaint or petition from Hinton in any capacity until he has received written permission in advance to file a complaint or petition, from a judicial officer in the Western District of Texas.

3 See Hinton v. McDonald's Corp., AW-01-cv-1400 (S.D. Md. June 26, 2002) (dismissing various constitutional and state law claims against McDonald's for the sale of french fries not cooked in 100% vegetable oil and barring Hinton from proceeding ifp in any future case while incarcerated pursuant to § 1915(g)); Hinton v. Rajjoub, 4:01-cv-2234 (M.D. Pa. 2002) (dismissing case for failure to state a claim and ordering clerk to note on docket that it was Hinton's "third strike" under the PLRA); Hinton v. Rajjoub, 4:01-cv-0795 (M.D. Pa. 2001) (noting that negligence action against private neurologist was the second lawsuit filed by Hinton which was dismissed for failure to state a claim and warning Hinton that filing another frivolous suit will result in the imposition of significant sanctions).