Opinion
C/A 4:24-3418-JD-TER
06-28-2024
Kathy Reaves, Plaintiff, v. Patrick Dean Blanchard, Charles Michael Dickens, James A. Segars, Christopher N. Williamson, Kenneth Phelps, South Carolina Highway Patrol, Richardson Plowden, Patrick L. Huff, Lisa Thomas, Lori Jenelle, Director, South Carolina Dept of Public Safety, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS E. ROGERS, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff was ordered to comply with this court's 2023 pre-filing injunction order's parameters and requirements and Plaintiff was instructed that a failure to comply would result in a denial of leave to file in this court and dismissal of the instant action. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff filed a response to that order, but the response is not in compliance with the requirements of the pre-filing injunction order. In fact, Plaintiff states: “Find the person who filed this action because it definitely was not her and in furtherance she has a pending case against some of the defendants in the SDGA.” (ECF No. 11 at 9). Plaintiff states “she has not filed ANY cases before this court in 2024.” (ECF No. 11 at 1). Plaintiff then gives a history of her numerous actions in this court starting in 2008 and in Georgia courts. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff was already informed of how this action came to be in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina: “The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia transferred this case to this court, finding proper venue within this district, and may not have been aware of Plaintiff's pre-filing injunction order in this court.” (ECF No. 8).
On January 25, 2024, the District of South Carolina district judge entered an order instituting a pre-filing injunction against Plaintiff as to actions within certain parameters. No. 4:23-cv-3847-JD (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff was ordered in the filing of any action:
Plaintiff must also pay the filing fee in full or obtain counsel to file new actions related to any event regarding the Georgia warrant and the 2021 South Carolina arrest in Marlboro County and its effect on Plaintiff's credit report and employment.
Further, Plaintiff is ORDERED to accompany any newly filed Complaint with a “Motion for Leave to File Pursuant to Court Order,” which should not exceed twenty pages in length and shall be forwarded to the Magistrate Judge for determination as to whether leave to file shall be granted, and Plaintiff's Motion shall be accompanied by: (1) a copy of the district judge's pre- filing injunction Order; (2) a statement from Plaintiff that the claims or relief sought are unrelated to the subject matter prohibited as outlined above; (3) a short and plain statement setting forth a valid basis for the claims or relief sought; and (4) a statement that the claims or relief sought either have or have not been raised before in other litigation, and if the claims/relief have been previously raised, then Plaintiff must provide the name of the case, the court where it was filed, the case number, and the disposition of the claims. Failure to comply with any of these requirements will be grounds for the Court to deny a “Motion for Leave to File Pursuant to Court Order” submitted by Plaintiff.Id. A review of Plaintiff's Complaint shows it is “related to any event regarding the Georgia warrant” and its effect; therefore, this action falls within the pre-filing injunction order's parameters and its requirements. Plaintiff has failed to respond appropriately to the prior court order in this action and failed to provide the information required in the 2023 pre-filing injunction order. Plaintiff alleges she does not want any actions in this court. (ECF No. 11). Thus, it is recommended that Plaintiff be denied leave to file this action in this court, this action be dismissed, and the motion for in forma pauperis(ECF No. 2) be rendered moot as the 2023 order required Plaintiff to pay the filing fee.