Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-1055-G
January 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The defendants Dub Branson ("Branson"), Danny Defenbaugh ("Defenbaugh"), and Linda Bazaco ("Bazaco") seek dismissal of the claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, their motion to dismiss these claims is granted.
THE PARTIES AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Defendants
Branson was, at the times relevant to this case, the United States Marshal for this district. See Notice of Removal at 1; Plaintiff Original Complaint for Impeachment, attached to Notice of Removal as Exhibit C-12. Defenbaugh is a former special agent in charge for the Dallas office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). See Notice of Removal, Exhibit C5, Letter Dated February 2, 2000 from Danny A. Defenbaugh to Judith E. Lewis. Bazaco was an assistant to former United States Senator Phil Gramm. See id., Exhibit C6, Plaintiff Amendant [sic] Petition for Removal from Office and Add Linda Bazaco as a Defendant to the Above Number Cause.
The Plaintiff — A Serial Filer
The pro se plaintiff in this case, Judith Lewis ("Lewis"), has had a history of filing related, redundant suits in this judicial district. She has commenced at least thirteen cases which were filed either directly in this court or removed here from a state court, many arising out of a common nucleus of facts regarding the Texas Prison System Project.
The First Suit
On August 26, 1999, Lewis filed a pro se complaint in this court against the FBI in reference to the "Texas Prison System investigation." See Plaintiff Original Petition as Amendant [sic] at 3. On that same date, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On October 7, 1999, Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr. ("Magistrate Judge Sanderson") recommended that the court dismiss all of Lewis's claims for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On October 26, 1999, United States District Judge Mary Lou Robinson adopted Magistrate Judge Sanderson's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's claims. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Cause Number 3:99-CV-1917-J.
The Second Suit
On September 8, 1999, Lewis filed a pro se suit in this court, this time against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). On that same dare, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In her complaint in that case, Lewis sought permanent injunctive relief requiring HUD to provide her emergency housing. Petition — For Permanent Injunction Relief from the Housing and Urban Development at 2. On September 9, 1999, United States District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater ("Judge Fitzwater") treated Lewis's petition as a motion for temporary restraining order and denied that motion. On December 9, 1999, United States Magistrate Judge Jane J. Boyle ("Magistrate Judge Boyle") recommended that the court dismiss all of Lewis's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On December 29, 1999, Judge Fitzwater adopted Magistrate Judge Boyle's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's claims. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Cause Number 3:99-CV-2016-D.
The Third Suit
On September 22, 1999, Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed suit in this court against Mountain View College. On that same date, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Lewis attempted to restrain Mountain View College from "issuing a fraudulent academic transcript to Collin County Community College." Plaintiff Original Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction Regarding Plaintiff Academic Transcript at 2. On September 29, 1999, Judge Fitzwater, treating Lewis's petition as a motion for a temporary restraining order, denied Lewis's motion. On October 8, 1999, United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney ("Magistrate Judge Stickney") issued the following order.
Cause Number 3:01-CV-2144-D.
Judith E. Lewis . . . entered the courthouse on October 6, 1999, became verbally abusive to court personnel and disruptive, and was escorted out of the building by security officers. Plaintiff has behaved inappropriately in the courthouse on previous occasions. From this date forward if . . . Lewis appears in the federal building for future appearances regarding this case or other cases, she shall be escorted by two Court Security Officers . . . .
Order Dated October 8, 1999, Cause No. 3:99-CV-2144-D.
On November 16, 1999, Magistrate Judge Stickney recommended that the court dismiss Lewis's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On December 15, 1999, Judge Fitzwater adopted Magistrate Judge Stickney's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's claims without prejudice. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
On May 26, 2000, citing his October 8, 1999 order and an incident report dated May 25, 2000, Magistrate Judge Stickney ordered that Lewis "shall not be allowed personal access to the United States Courthouse . . . without express permission from the Court." Order dated May 26, 2000, Cause No. 3:99-CV-2144-D.
The Fourth Suit
On December 1, 1999, Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed suit in this court against Robert J. Dean. The complaint referred to Lewis's prior civil case number 3:99-CV-1917-R and complained of the Texas Prison System Project. See generally Plaintiff Original Petition as Amendment. On that same date, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 11, 2000, Magistrate Judge Sanderson recommended that the court dismiss Lewis's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On February 1, 2000, United States District Judge Barefoot Sanders adopted Magistrate Judge Sanderson's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's complaint without prejudice. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Cause Number 3:99-CV-2725-H.
The Fifth Suit
On December 6, 1999, Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed suit in this court against Janet Reno and the Department of Justice. On that same date, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint referred to two of Lewis's prior civil filings in this judicial district. Specifically, Lewis averred that "[t]his injunction is connected to cause no. 3:99CV1917-R and Cause no. 3:99CV2016D." Plaintiff Original Petition as Amendant [sic] for Permanent Injunction against Janet Reno the Department of Justice ¶ 3. Once again, Lewis's grievances derived from dissatisfaction with the Texas Prison System Project. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4, 5. On March 8, 2000, United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan ("Magistrate Judge Kaplan") recommended that the court dismiss Lewis's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Magistrate Judge Kaplan further recommended that Lewis be required to obtain leave of court before filing any additional complaints in forma pauperis. Magistrate Judge Kaplan noted the following:
Cause Number 3:99-CV-2752-H.
Plaintiff has filed ten lawsuits in the past seven months. Four of these cases have been dismissed for want of prosecution. . . . Recommendations for dismissal are pending in two other cases. . . . Based on this history, plaintiff should be prohibited from filing any additional in forma pauperis complaints without first obtaining leave of court.
Order dated March 8, 2000, Cause No. 3:99-CV-2752-H.
On March 22, 2000, Judge Sanders adopted Magistrate Judge Kaplan's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's claims without prejudice. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
The Sixth Suit
On January 14, 2000, Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed suit in this court against United States Senator Phil Gramm. The complaint referred to the Texas Prison System Project. See generally Plaintiff Original Petition as Amendant [sic]. On that same date, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On February 22, 2000, Magistrate Judge Kaplan recommended that the court dismiss Lewis's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On March 13, 2000, United States District Judge A. Joe Fish ("Judge Fish") adopted Magistrate Judge Kaplan's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's claims without prejudice. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Cause Number 3:00-CV-0080-G.
The Seventh Suit
On January 24, 2000, Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed suit in this court against Bruce Casteel and the Texas Department of Public Safety. The complaint referred to Lewis's prior civil filings in this judicial district and the Texas Prison System Project. See generally Plaintiff Original Petition as Amendant [sic]. On March 6, 2000, Magistrate Judge Stickney recommended that the court dismiss Lewis's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On March 30, 2000, Judge Fitzwater adopted Magistrate Judge Stickney's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's claims without prejudice. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Cause Number 3:00-CV-0148-D.
The Eighth Suit
On January 25, 2000, Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed suit in this court against Beverly Simone and MATC Human Protection Services. The complaint referred to the Texas Prison Project. See generally Plaintiff Original Petition as Amendant [sic]. On that same date, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On February 22, 2000, Magistrate Judge Kaplan recommended that the court dismiss Lewis's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On March 30, 2000, United States District Judge Robert B. Maloney ("Judge Maloney") adopted Magistrate Judge Kaplan's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's claims without prejudice. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Cause Number 3:00-CV-0168-T.
The Ninth Suit
On February 4, 2000, Lewis filed a pro se suit in this court against the Dallas Police Department. The complaint referred to civil case number 3:99-CV-1917-R, one of Lewis's previous filings in this judicial district. Plaintiff Original Petition at 5. On that same date, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On February 7, 2000, Lewis amended her complaint. On March 10, 2000, Magistrate Judge Sanderson recommended that the court dismiss Lewis's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Magistrate Judge Sanderson also recommended that Lewis be required to obtain leave of court before filing any additional complaints in forma pauperis. On April 26, 2000, Judge Maloney adopted Magistrate Judge Sanderson's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's claims without prejudice and further ordered that Lewis "shall not file any more lawsuits in this district under in forma pauperis status without first obtaining the express permission of a United States District Judge of the Northern District of Texas." Order dated April 26, 2000, Cause Number 3:00-CV-0268-T. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Cause Number 3:00-CV-0268-T.
The Tenth Suit
On February 28, 2000, Lewis, proceeding pro se, filed suit in this court against Leonidas Mecham, administrator of the United States Courts. The complaint referred to the Texas Prison Project. See generally Plaintiff Original Petition. On that same date, Lewis filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 28, 2000, Magistrate Judge Kaplan recommended that the court dismiss Lewis's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). On May 11, 2000, Judge Sanders adopted Magistrate Judge Kaplan's findings and recommendation and entered judgment dismissing Lewis's claims without prejudice. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Cause Number 3:00-CV-0435-H.
The Eleventh Suit
On March 12, 2001, Lewis filed suit in the 116th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas against "Fossil et. al." for the alleged violation of numerous state and federal statutes. On April 6, 2001, the defendant removed the case to this court. On that same date, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss Lewis's claims against it pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 8(e)(1), and 12(b)(6). On May 8, 2001, the court ordered Lewis to file a short and plain statement of her claim showing that she was entitled to relief. Order dated May 8, 2001 at 2, Cause Number 3:01-CV-0689-G. On May 22, 2002, Lewis filed an "original answer to Fossil motion to dismiss." On May 29, 2001, Judge Fish dismissed Lewis's case without prejudice because she failed to comply with the court's May 8, 2001 order. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Cause Number 3:01-CV-0689-G.
The Twelfth Suit
On July 11, 2001, Lewis filed suit in the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas against Fossil et. al. ( i.e., Fossil Partners, L.P.) and Kosta Kartsotic for the alleged violation of numerous state and federal statutes. On August 3, 2001, the defendants removed the case to this court. On August 10, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to Judge Fish. On September 5, 2001, United States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay ("Judge Lindsay") granted the motion to dismiss the case with prejudice and denied the motion to transfer the case as moot. In that order, Judge Lindsay ruled that
Cause Number 3:01-CV-1501-L.
[T]he complaint, even when construed liberally, is virtually incomprehensible and does not meet the standards required by [Federal] Rules [of Civil Procedure] 8 and 12(b). The court further notes that the complaint is essentially identical to one filed on March 12, 2001 in the 116th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, removed to federal court, and dismissed without prejudice [citing Lewis v. Fossil Partners, L.P., Cause Number 3:01-CV-0689-G].
Order dated September 5, 2001 at 1-2, Cause Number 3:01-CV-1501-L. No appeal was taken from that judgment. Judge Lindsay ordered Lewis to show cause why the court should not impose sanctions on Lewis for violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Id. at 2-3. Lewis did not respond to that show cause order.
The Thirteenth Suit
On February 28, 2002, Lewis filed the instant case in the 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas against Branson. See Notice of Removal, Exhibit C1, Plaintiff Original Petition for Impeachment. In her complaint, Lewis alleged the following:
Cause Number 02-01923-L.
. . . In civil cause filed in U.S. District courts Judith Lewis Vs. FBI and Judith Lewis Vs. U.S. Senator Phil Gramm the defendants retrieve A criminal investigation that involved the plaintiff and the Texas Prison system that has spanned (16) sixteen years armed with legal documents of public officials City, County, State and Federal employees who engaged in civil and criminal acts regarding the defendants put into motion their on [sic] political agenda that resulted in the defendants violation of.
. . . [A]t all time the defendants must be held accountable for A agencies of the U.S. Department of Justice to think they are immobilized is totally insane on their part the court must be immaculate in their Judgment.Id. at 1-2.
On March 5, 2002, Lewis amended her petition and added Defenbaugh as a defendant. See Notice of Removal, Exhibit B, Plaintiff Original As Amendant [sic] to Add Danny Defenbaugh for Impeachment. In the amended petition, Lewis alleged that "the U.S. Marshals service deleted the plaintiff false criminal record for the purpose of conspiring to murder the plaintiff and ensuring that U.S. Senator Phil Gramm would become the subject of the criminal investigation and the defendants Danny Defenbaugh would control the Texas prison system criminal investigation and A trillion dollars project." Id. at 2.
On April 4, 2002, Lewis amended her petition again and added Bazaco as a defendant. See Notice of Removal, Exhibit C6, Plaintiff Amendant [sic] Petition for Removal from Office and Add Linda Bazaco as a Defendant to the Above Number Cause. In her second amended petition, Lewis alleged the following:
. . . Linda Bazaco is A johnny-come-late to Maverick senator office and to the Texas prison project stepped into the limelight after the former office manager was forced into early retirement when it was discover her involvement in obstruction-of-justice regarding the Texas Prison project and other pending litigation.
. . . For the prior (3) three years Linda Bazaco received criminal information regarding A conspiracy to commit murder regarding the plaintiff and at all times had a legal duty to contact the proper authorities and to follow-up to ensure justice would prevail.Id. at 1-2.
On April 18, 2002, Lewis filed a motion to add Bruce Ohr as a defendant. See Notice of Removal, Exhibit C10, Plaintiff Motion Petition to Add Defendant Bruce Ohr Chief Organized Crime Racketeering. On April 25, 2002, Lewis filed a motion to add U.S. Marshal Touchstone as a defendant. See Notice of Removal, Exhibit C11, Plaintiff Motion and Briff [sic] to Add Defendant Touchstone U.S. Marshal Dallas, Texas.
On May 20, 2002, Branson and Defenbaugh removed the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), 1442(a)(1), and 1446. See Notice of Removal at 1. On May 30, 2002, Branson and Defenbaugh moved to dismiss Lewis's claims against them, contending that Lewis failed to plead that either Branson or Defenbaugh violated a clearly established constitutional right. Federal Defendants' Motion at 5-7. On August 21, 2002, Assistant United States Attorney Frank D. Able, citing 28 C.F.R. § 50.15, filed a motion on behalf of Bazaco to dismiss Lewis's claims. Bazaco maintains that Lewis failed to plead that Bazaco violated a clearly established constitutional right. Linda Bazaco's Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support at 3-4. On August 28, 2002, Lewis filed an unintelligible response to the motions.
ANALYSIS Legal Standards Applicable On Motion To Dismiss
A complaint need only recite a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Thus, a motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) should be granted only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of her claim that would entitle her to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District, 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994). The court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Norman v. Apache corporation, 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994). The court should also give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint, rather than dismiss it, if it appears that a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Friedlander v. Nims, 755 F.2d 810, 813 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Investment Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 597-99 (5th Cir. 1981). In applying this standard, it must be noted that "a pro se complaint, 'however inartfully pleaded,' must be held to 'less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). But see United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, all litigants must abide by rules of procedure).
Even with a liberal reading of the complaint, this court cannot identify a claim upon which relief can be granted. The allegations are wholly conclusory, incoherent and fail to set forth in any detail or with any particularity exactly how Lewis's statutory or constitutional rights were violated and in particular what acts each defendant did to cause such a violation. Even with a liberal construction, none of Lewis's allegations sets forth facts to support a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, Lewis's claims are dismissed under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
Lewis's motions filed in state court on April 18, 2002 and April 25, 2002, to add Bruce Ohr and U.S. Marshal Touchstone respectively are denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the defendants's motions to dismiss Lewis's claims against them are GRANTED, and this case is therefore DISMISSED.Sanctions — No New Cases To Be Accepted Without Prior Judicial Approval
As noted above, Lewis is a serial filer. Lewis is barred from filing any further actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas without first obtaining permission to file from the Chief Judge of this court. See Smith v. McCleod, 946 F.2d 417, 418 (5th Cir. 1991) (imposing similar bar on filing new appeals from filing of fifth frivolous appeal). Any violation of this bar order may be punishable as a contempt of this court.To further effectuate this ban on the filing of new lawsuits by Lewis without leave of court, the clerk shall return to Lewis — unfiled — any pleading, motion, or other document submitted by Lewis without the advance written permission of the Chief Judge. Further, the clerk shall summarily dismiss as frivolous any case initiated by Lewis that is received indirectly through transfer or removal, citing this memorandum order as authority, unless the Chief Judge certifies in writing its non-frivolousness and grants Lewis leave to proceed.