Opinion
Civ. No. 05-412 JP/RHS.
November 15, 2005
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PROPOSED ORDER ENJOINING PLAINTIFF CHIBUEZE C. ANAEME FROM FILING FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS LAWSUITS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED
TO: CHIBUEZE C. ANAEME, Plaintiff.
Plaintiff, Chibueze C. Anaeme, is directed to show cause, in writing and by not later than December 15, 2005, why the proposed Order Enjoining Plaintiff Chibueze C. Anaeme from Filing Frivolous and Vexatious Lawsuits, a copy of which is attached, should not be entered.
On July 18, 2005, Defendant Hot Springs Venture Partnership and Defendant Joshua Frankel filed a Motion to Enjoin Future Actions Without Leave of Court. (Doc. No. 48). Plaintiff has not filed a response to this motion, and is therefore deemed to have consented to the granting of the motion. D.N.M. LR-Civ. 7.1(b). However, the Court believes Plaintiff should be provided with an opportunity to object to the proposed Order and show cause why the proposed Order should not be entered.
If Plaintiff does not show good cause, in writing and by December 15, 2005, why the proposed Order should not be entered, then the Order Enjoining Plaintiff Chibueze C. Anaeme from Filing Frivolous and Vexatious Lawsuits will be entered soon thereafter.
ORDER ENJOINING PLAINTIFF CHIBUEZE C. ANAEME FROM FILING FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS LAWSUITS
Defendants Hot Spring Venture Partnership and Joshua Frankel filed a Motion to Enjoin Future Actions Without Leave of the Court on July 18, 2005. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff Chibueze Anaeme has not filed a response.A federal court has inherent power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to protect itself from the impact of repetitive and unfounded pro se litigation — a court may enjoin litigants who abuse the court system. Werner v. Utah, 32 F.3d 1446, 1447-48 (10th Cir. 1994); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). A party's right of access to the courts is not absolute, nor is it unconditional. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353. And there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353; Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir. 1981).
Of course, a pro se party's litigiousness does not by itself support an injunction restricting future filing activities. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353; In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982). But when a party's history of frivolous and vexatious litigation is demonstrated, restrictions are appropriate. See, e.g., In re Winslow, 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994); Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353. Even burdensome restrictions may be imposed upon a party if the restrictions are designed to curb the particular abusive behavior involved. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 352; Carter v. United States, 733 F.2d 735, 737 (10th Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1161 (1985). However, the restrictions cannot be so formidable that the party is denied meaningful access to the courts. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353. See also Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1997).
Mr. Anaeme is a pro se litigant who has engaged in a pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation in this Court. Mr. Anaeme has filed fifteen civil lawsuits in this Court against various private persons and governmental bodies. An additional four lawsuits have been removed to this Court. Thus, Mr. Anaeme has appeared as plaintiff before this Court in a total of nineteen civil cases. Five of Mr. Anaeme's lawsuits are currently pending. Many of these suits are against the same entities and individuals, allege the same causes of action, and are based upon the same factual background. A full description of Mr. Anaeme's history of frivolous and vexatious litigation is set forth in the attached APPENDIX.
As is demonstrated in the APPENDIX, Mr. Anaeme's lawsuits have forced the Court to waste precious time and expend valuable judicial resources reviewing, and ultimately dismissing, his numerous claims. Mr. Anaeme's claims are often dismissed for failure to respond to dispositive motions and discovery or for failure to prosecute the action. These suits serve only to congest the Court dockets and divert judicial resources from meritorious claims. Moreover, when Mr. Anaeme's claims are dismissed, he regularly files motions to reconsider, appeals the decision to the Tenth Circuit, or alleges the same cause of action in another lawsuit. Thus, many defendants are forced to incur heavy litigation costs, including large attorneys' fees, and endure the burdens of lost time and productivity by having to respond to Mr. Anaeme's repetitive and vexatious lawsuits.
Mr. Anaeme's history of filing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits, his refusal to respond to dispositive motions and discovery, and his pursuit of meritless appeals constitutes clearly abusive behavior. Unless Mr. Anaeme is restrained in the future he will continue to abuse the court process, squander judicial resources, and wreak havoc on the lives of private citizens and public officials through frivolous and vexatious litigation. The Court therefore will enjoin Mr. Anaeme from filing new lawsuits in this Court unless the following filing restrictions are met.
FILING RESTRICTIONS
THE COURT HEREBY ENJOINS Chibueze C. Anaeme from filing any new lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico unless he complies with the following conditions:
1. Mr. Anaeme must be represented by a licensed attorney of record authorized to practice in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
a. Mr. Anaeme's attorney must certify in writing that, based on the attorney's review, the proposed complaint:
(1) States a cause of action sufficient to sustain scrutiny under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6);
(2) Meets the pleading requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 8; and
(3) Meets the factual predicate requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 11.
b. If Mr. Anaeme is represented by counsel who makes this required certification, the proposed complaint will be received and filed.
2. Alternatively, if Mr. Anaeme wishes to proceed as a pro se litigant, he must comply with the following steps:
a. Mr. Anaeme must certify that his proposed complaint is in accordance with the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 11; and
b. Mr. Anaeme must present a separate affidavit, in proper legal form, with the proposed complaint. This affidavit must:
(1) Demonstrate that the action is commenced in good faith and is not malicious or without arguable merit;
(2) Include a list of every prior action which Mr. Anaeme has filed in federal or state court. The list must provide the names of all parties in those actions, as well as the docket number of each action. The list must disclose the status and outcome of each action, including the outcome of any appeals;
(3) Include a list informing the Court of all outstanding injunctions or orders that restrict Mr. Anaeme's access to any state or federal court, including orders and injunctions requiring him to seek permission to file pro se actions or requiring that he be represented by an attorney. A copy of each order or injunction must be included with the affidavit;
(4) Recite the issues that Mr. Anaeme seeks to present and provide a short discussion of their legal bases;
(5) Disclose whether similar claims were asserted in any prior action filed by Mr. Anaeme. Mr. Anaeme must include the docket number, status, and the name of the court where the prior action was filed; and
(6) Certify that the legal arguments being raised are not frivolous or made in bad faith, and that they are warranted by existing law or by a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
c. The Clerk of Court will not file or docket Mr. Anaeme's proposed complaint upon receipt of the proposed complaint and affidavit. Instead, the Clerk of Court will submit the documents for pre-filing review by a district judge, or, at the Court's option, by a magistrate judge. If the district judge or magistrate judge determines that the proposed complaint appears to (1) state a cause of action, (2) is commenced in good faith, and (3) is not malicious, without arguable merit, or repetitive, then the district judge or magistrate judge will instruct the Clerk of Court to accept the proposed complaint for filing. If the district judge or magistrate judge rejects the proposed complaint, then it will be returned to Mr. Anaeme.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this Order will not affect any cases Mr. Anaeme currently has pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico and it will not affect Mr. Anaeme's ability to respond to and defend against any claim if he is named as a defendant in a case before the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
APPENDIX
1. Anaeme v. Furr's, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 91-574 (1991): On May 31, 1991, Mr. Anaeme filed his first lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against Furr's Inc. and Furr's Supermarket, Inc. Mr. Anaeme claimed that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race, Black, and national origin, Nigerian, in his employment with the defendants. Mr. Anaeme was represented by counsel during most of the proceedings. On July 28, 1992, Mr. Anaeme's attorney, Erenio Gutierrez, Jr., filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. Although Mr. Anaeme entered his appearance pro se, he eventually was represented by attorney Fred Abramowitz.On May 7, 1992, Senior United States District Judge E.L. Mechem granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Mr. Anaeme's claims for breach of express contract, retaliation under Title VII, and emotional distress. A trial was held on May 11-15, 1992 for Mr. Anaeme's remaining claims of breach of implied contract, retaliatory discharge, and denial of equal rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The trial resulted in a hung jury, but the case settled before a second trial was held. Mr. Anaeme's claims were dismissed with prejudice on January 8, 1993. The docket for this case shows 240 entries.
2. Anaeme v. UNM Board of Regents, et al., Civ. No. 93-0942 (1993): Mr. Anaeme's second lawsuit in this district was filed on August 6, 1993 against the University of New Mexico Board of Regents, the University of New Mexico Hospital ("UNMH"), and Chris Sykes. Mr. Anaeme alleged that the University of New Mexico discriminated against him on the basis of race when it terminated his employment in 1991. He brought claims under Title VII for race discrimination in employment and for retaliation.
Mr. Anaeme was represented by attorney Gerald Bloomfield. However, Mr. Anaeme sought to withdraw Mr. Bloomfield as counsel on August 5, 1994 after Mr. Bloomfield had failed to respond to several dispositive motions. Attorney Raul A. Carrillo, Jr. entered his appearance for Mr. Anaeme on September 16, 1994. However, District Judge Martha Vazquez granted Mr. Carrillo's motion to withdraw nearly one year later, on September 13, 1995. Finally, attorney Michael E. Mozes entered his appearance as counsel for Mr. Anaeme on September 15, 1995.
After a settlement conference on June 1, 1994, Mr. Anaeme moved to dismiss defendant Chris Sykes. (Doc. No. 41). Mr. Sykes was dismissed with prejudice on June 29, 1994.
Defendant UNMH filed a motion for summary judgment on May 19, 1994. (Doc. No. 37). When Mr. Anaeme did not timely respond, the defendants moved for dismissal. (Doc. No. 42). Mr. Anaeme, acting pro se at this time, moved for a stay of litigation while he sought new counsel. After obtaining representation by Mr. Carrillo, Mr. Anaeme requested several extensions of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 49, 52, and 56). While these motions were pending, the parties jointly moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. (Doc. No. 80). The parties appeared to have reached a settlement of all claims, and Judge Vazquez dismissed the case with prejudice on March 26, 1996. There are 81 docket entries.
3. Anaeme v. UNM Student Health Center, et al., Civ. No. 94-1291 (1994): Mr. Anaeme, acting pro se, filed a "Notice of Appeal, Complaint, and Request for Trial De Novo" in New Mexico State Court against the State of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico Student Health Center ("the Student Health Center"). Mr. Anaeme appealed the New Mexico Department of Labor's determination of his charge against the Student Health Center for employment discrimination. The New Mexico Department of Labor had determined there was no probable cause to support the charge of discrimination and had dismissed Mr. Anaeme's charge with prejudice. The defendants removed the action to federal court on November 10, 1994.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on December 15, 1994. On December 28, 1994, Mr. Anaeme moved to allow Steven Harrell to appear as his counsel, and the Court granted his motion on January 5, 1995. Mr. Anaeme, through counsel, responded to the motion for summary judgment.
However, on April 25, 1995, Magistrate Judge William W. Deaton granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Judge Deaton found that Mr. Anaeme had "failed to point to sufficient evidence tending to establish discriminatory intent on the part of the Defendants." (Doc. No. 31, pg. 8). Mr. Anaeme's claims were dismissed with prejudice. There are 31 docket entries in this case.
4. Anaeme v. Diagnostek, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 95-0684 (1995): On June 27, 1995, Mr. Anaeme filed a lawsuit against Diagnostek, Inc. and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries for race discrimination. Mr. Anaeme claimed that he had applied for more than sixty positions advertised by the defendants during a three and a half year period, but had not been given an interview. Mr. Anaeme was represented by attorney Michael Mozes.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on May 31, 1996. (Doc. No. 30). Mr. Anaeme timely responded. Senior District Judge Santiago E. Campos granted, in part, and denied, in part, the defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 35). Judge Campos determined that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Anaeme's claims for disparate treatment under Title VII, and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. However, Judge Campos granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Mr. Anaeme's claim for disparate impact under Title VII.
Beginning on July 22, 1996, a jury trial was held on the remaining claims. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Judgment was entered for the defendants on July 30, 1996, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Anaeme filed a motion for a new trial on August 9, 1996, arguing that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the jury did not consider a limiting instruction given during trial, and finally, that the judgment would result in an miscarriage of justice. Judge Campos denied Mr. Anaeme's motion for a new trial on February 27, 1997.
Mr Anaeme appealed the denial of a new trial to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Judge Campos' decision in a published opinion, Anaeme v. Diagnostek, Inc., et al., 164 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 1999). Mr. Anaeme appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari on October 4, 1999. There are 58 docket entries.
5. Anaeme v. American Stores Co., Civ. No. 96-1479 (1996): Mr. Anaeme's fifth civil suit in the District of New Mexico was filed on October 25, 1996 against American Stores Co., Jewel Osco Southwest, Inc., Osco Drug, and one other individual. Mr. Anaeme contended that the defendants improperly discriminated against him on the basis of race when the defendants rejected his applications for employment. Mr Anaeme asserted claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and under state tort law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. He was initially represented by attorney David G. Crum. However, Mr. Crum withdrew as his counsel on January 3, 1997. Attorney Dan Faber entered an appearance on behalf of Mr. Anaeme on February 21, 1997. Attorneys K. Lee Peifer and Angela Cornell also entered their appearances on his behalf on March 17, 1997. However, the Court granted all three attorneys' motions to withdraw as counsel on March 19, 1998. Mr. Anaeme thereafter appeared pro se.
District Judge Bruce D. Black granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on April 8, 1998. Judge Black dismissed Mr. Anaeme's claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because Mr. Anaeme's "failed to present sufficient facts to establish the elements of a cause of action under Title VII or § 1981." (Doc. No. 58, pg. 18). Judge Black further declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Anaeme's state claims and dismissed the case.
Mr. Anaeme appealed Judge Black's decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was subsequently dismissed per Mr. Anaeme's request. The docket contains 65 entries.
6. Anaeme v. State of New Mexico, et al., Civ. No. 97-403 (1997): On March 27, 1997, Mr. Anaeme filed suit against the State of New Mexico, the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, the New Mexico State Police, and two state police officers. Mr. Anaeme alleged claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, deprivation of property rights, conspiracy, and failure to train and supervise. Mr. Anaeme was represented by attorney Dennis Montoya.
The case settled at a settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Don J. Svet on September 23, 1997. After Mr. Anaeme moved to dismiss, District Judge Martha Vazquez dismissed the case with prejudice on October 30, 1997. There are 10 docket entries.
7. Anaeme v. Lovelace Health Systems, Inc., Civ. No. 97-463 (1997): On April 8, 1997, Mr. Anaeme filed suit against Lovelace Health Systems, Inc. and seven of its employees for race discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Anaeme alleged that he had applied for employment with Lovelace Health Systems several times and, because of his race, was not granted an interview. Mr. Anaeme was represented by attorney Dan Faber. Attorney Vicki Viramontes-LaFree also entered her appearance on behalf of Mr. Anaeme on November 18, 1997. However, both attorneys withdrew as Mr. Anaeme's counsel on March 25, 1998. Mr. Anaeme then proceeded pro se.
On March 13, 1998, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. (Doc. No. 47). Mr. Anaeme filed a timely response. District Judge Martha Vazquez granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on October 30, 1998, finding that Mr. Anaeme had failed to either establish a prima facie case of discrimination or rebut the defendant's nondiscriminatory explanation. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
On November 25, 1998, Mr. Anaeme appealed Judge Vazquez's dismissal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in an unpublished decision on December 7, 1999.
8. Anaeme v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services Co., Civ. No. 97-1242 (1997): On September 16, 1997, Mr. Anaeme filed suit against Presbyterian Healthcare Services Co. alleging employment discrimination. At the time of filing, Mr. Anaeme had lawsuits pending against American Stores (Civ. No. 96-1479, ¶ 5 above), the State of New Mexico (Civ. No. 97-403, ¶ 6 above), and Lovelace Health Systems (Civ. No. 97-463, ¶ 7 above). On March 30, 1998, this case was consolidated with Anaeme v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Civ. No. 97-1616 (see ¶ 10, below) based upon a motion made by Mr. Anaeme's counsel.
Mr. Anaeme was represented by attorney Dennis Montoya for a portion of the proceedings. However, Mr. Montoya withdrew as Mr. Anaeme's counsel on November 17, 1997, and attorneys Nancy Cronin and Vicki Viramontes-LaFree entered their appearances on his behalf. On May 8, 1998, District Judge Martha Vazquez granted Ms. Cronin's and Ms. Viramontes-LaFree's unopposed motion to withdraw as Mr. Anaeme's counsel. Mr. Anaeme then proceeded pro se.
The case did not settle at a settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Leslie C. Smith on June 17, 1998. Two days later, Mr. Anaeme requested an extension of case deadlines in order to obtain counsel. Mr. Anaeme's request was denied by Judge Smith on July 9, 1998.
The defendant filed a Motion for a Sanction of Dismissal on June 25, 1998. On July 10, 1998, the defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Anaeme did not respond to either motion.
On July 23, 1998, Judge Vazquez sua sponte entered an Order directing Mr. Anaeme to show cause within thirty days why the Court should not dismiss the lawsuit for failure to respond to motions, failure to cooperate in discovery, or for want of prosecution. Mr. Anaeme had failed to appear for his deposition on June 15, 1998, even though the deposition had been rescheduled twice per his request. He had not responded to the defendant's discovery requests, nor had Mr. Anaeme responded to the defendant's motions. Judge Vazquez noted that "[a]lthough [Mr. Anaeme] is currently appearing pro se, he is an experienced litigant who has been involved in at least nine lawsuits — several of which are still pending — and is aware of the importance of diligently prosecuting an action and maintaining communications with the Court and opposing counsel." (Doc. No. 52, pg. 2).
Mr. Anaeme responded to Judge Vazquez's Order to show cause on August 27, 1998. However, Judge Vazquez granted the defendant's Motion for a Sanction of Dismissal on September 8, 1998, thereby terminating the case. Attorney Miguel Campos made a limited entry of appearance on behalf of Mr. Anaeme on October 8, 1998, at which time Mr. Anaeme requested that the Court reconsider its order of dismissal. Judge Vazquez denied Mr. Anaeme's Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal on October 29, 1998.
Mr. Anaeme appealed the denial of his motion for reconsideration to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Tenth Circuit granted Mr. Anaeme's subsequent motion to dismiss the appeal. The case generated 63 docket entries.
9. Anaeme v. FHP of New Mexico, et al., Civ. No. 97-1243 (1997): On September 17, 1997, one day after filing Anaeme v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Civ. No. 97-1242 (see ¶ 8, above), Mr. Anaeme filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against FHP of New Mexico, Talbert Medical Management Company, and six other individual defendants. Mr. Anaeme alleged that the defendants had discriminated against him on the basis of race when they rejected his applications for employment. Mr. Anaeme brought claims against the defendants under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and under state tort law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Anaeme was initially represented by attorney Dan Faber. However, District Judge Bruce D. Black granted Mr. Faber's motion to withdraw on February 6, 1998. Mr. Anaeme then proceeded pro se.
The defendants filed several motions seeking to compel Mr. Anaeme to cooperate in the discovery process and to sanction Mr. Anaeme for not attending his scheduled deposition. Mr. Anaeme did not respond. On June 30, 1998, Magistrate Judge Don J. Svet granted, in part, the defendants' motions, stating "[Mr. Anaeme's] status as a pro se litigant does not excuse him from his duty to comply with the rules of civil procedure . . . [he] has substantial experience with litigation, having brought eight other civil actions in this court within the past seven years. . . . [Mr. Anaeme] has appeared pro se in three of those actions." (Doc. No. 52, pg. 2) (citations omitted). Judge Svet ordered Mr. Anaeme to respond to written discovery and awarded $300 to defendants' counsel as a sanction. Moreover, Judge Svet warned Mr. Anaeme "that further failure to cooperate in discovery or failure to obey this Order could result in further sanctions, including dismissal of this action." (Doc. No. 52, pg. 3).
In spite of Judge Svet's warning, Mr. Anaeme remained unresponsive to discovery. About two weeks after Judge Svet's order, the defendants again moved to dismiss the case for failure to cooperate in discovery. Although Mr. Anaeme did not timely respond to the motion, Judge Black ordered Mr. Anaeme to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. Judge Black set the motion for a hearing on September 30, 1998. Mr. Anaeme did not appear at the hearing. Judge Black therefore dismissed the case with prejudice on October 6, 1998.
Ten days later, on October 16, 1998, Mr. Anaeme filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order of dismissal. Attorney Miguel Campos also entered his appearance on behalf of Mr. Anaeme. Judge Black denied Mr. Anaeme's motion for reconsideration on February 23, 1999. Mr. Anaeme appealed this decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Judge Black's decision on December 3, 1999. There are 74 docket entries in this case.
10. Anaeme v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services Co., Civ. No. 97-1616 (1997): Mr. Anaeme filed yet another case against Presbyterian Healthcare Services on December 19, 1997, alleging that it had discriminated against Mr. Anaeme on the basis of race when it rejected his applications for employment. Mr. Anaeme was represented by attorneys Nancy Cronin and Vicki Viramontes-LaFree. On March 30, 1998, this case was consolidated with the lead case of Anaeme v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Civ. No. 97-1242, which is discussed in ¶ 8 above. Both cases were dismissed by District Judge Martha Vazquez for Mr. Anaeme's failure to appear at his depositions and his failure to respond to discovery requests and dispositive motions. There are five docket entries.
11. Anaeme v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services Co., et al., Civ. No. 99-451 (1999): On April 23, 1999, Mr. Anaeme, acting pro se, filed a third suit against Presbyterian Healthcare Services and eight of its employees. Mr. Anaeme again complained that Presbyterian Healthcare Services had discriminated against him when it rejected his applications for employment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for attorneys' fees on July 29, 1999, stating that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Instead of timely responding, Mr. Anaeme filed a motion seeking an extension of thirty days to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants opposed the requested extension, stating that "[t]his action is nothing more than the continuation of actions previously dismissed by this Court." (Doc. No. 9, pg. 2).
Mr. Anaeme did not file a response within the thirty days he initially requested. However, on October 15, 1999, the Court granted Mr. Anaeme an extension until November 1, 1999 to show why the case should not be dismissed as time barred. Mr. Anaeme finally filed a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 1, 1999. Unfortunately, Mr. Anaeme's response did not address the defendants' argument that the complaint was time-barred. Mr. Anaeme instead argued, at length, the merits of his claim.
The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 19, 1999. Although the Court denied the defendants' motion for attorney's fees, the Court acknowledged that "the filing of this action probably should be considered harassing and vexatious." (Doc. No. 15, pg. 2). The Court cautioned Mr. Anaeme that "he must not, in the future, file another similar frivolous lawsuit against these Defendants." (Doc. No. 15, pg. 3). Mr. Anaeme appealed the Court's dismissal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal on April 7, 2000. There are 18 docket entries.
12. Anaeme v. Fla. Dept. of Corrections, et al., Civ. No. 03-1406 (2003): On December 10, 2003, Mr. Anaeme, acting pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit against the Florida Department of Corrections and 86 other entities and individuals, arising from his 2003 arrest, prosecution, and incarceration in Duval County, Florida. Mr. Anaeme filed an amended complaint and several motions between January and June 2004. However, he failed to effectively serve any of the defendants. On July 6, 2004, District Judge James O. Browning sent notice to Mr. Anaeme that the case would be dismissed within 30 days for failure effect service within the 120 day time period set forth in FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) unless good cause was shown. Mr. Anaeme did not respond, and Judge Browning dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of prosecution on August 10, 2004.
Mr. Anaeme appealed Judge Browning's dismissal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Order of dismissal on April 27, 2005. There are 13 docket entries in this case.
13. Anaeme v. Truth or Consequences Police Dept., et. al., Civ. No. 04-790 (2004): On July 13, 2004, Mr. Anaeme, acting pro se, filed a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against (1) the Truth or Consequences Police Department and two of its officers ("the T or C defendants"); (2) B.C.W., Inc., and three of its employees ("the B.C.W. defendants"); and (3) Best Western Hot Springs Inn and its employee, Joshua Frankel ("Hot Springs Venture Partnership defendants"). Mr. Anaeme alleged claims for harassment and assault, negligence, conspiracy, failure to train and supervise, police misconduct, and punitive damages arising from Mr. Anaeme's June 4, 2004 stay at the Best Western Hot Springs Inn in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.
On August 18, 2004, the Hot Springs Venture Partnership defendants moved to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Mr. Anaeme did not respond. The Court granted the motion on September 15, 2004, and dismissed the Hot Springs Venture Partnership defendants because Mr. Anaeme had not responded and because he had failed to state a valid claim for relief. Mr. Anaeme appealed this decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 12, 2004. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal because it lacked appellate jurisdiction.
The B.C.W. defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 10, 2004. Yet again, Mr. Anaeme did not respond. The Court granted the motion to dismiss on October 14, 2004, similarly dismissing the B.C.W. defendants because Mr. Anaeme failed to respond and because he had failed allege a meritorious claim. Mr. Anaeme appealed this decision to the Tenth Circuit on October 26, 2005. The Tenth Circuit also dismissed this appeal because it lacked appellate jurisdiction.
Finally, the T or C defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2005. Mr. Anaeme did not respond to this motion. The Court therefore dismissed the case with prejudice on November 3, 2005 based upon the failure to respond and the failure to state a valid claim against the T or C defendants. The docket currently contains 56 entries.
14. Anaeme v. State of Florida, et al., Civ. No. 04-976 (2004): Mr. Anaeme, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit on August 31, 2004 against the State of Florida, the Florida Department of Corrections, and over 130 other individuals and entities for malicious prosecution and abusive litigation. The events giving rise to this lawsuit are identical to those in Anaeme v. Fla. Dept. of Corrections, et al., Civ. No. 03-1406 (see ¶ 12, above), namely, Mr. Anaeme's 2003 arrest, prosecution, and incarceration in Florida. However, Mr. Anaeme now was able to serve many of the defendants.
On February 22, 2004, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice based on lack of venue because Mr. Anaeme made "no allegations that any of the events of which he complains occurred in the State of New Mexico and makes no allegations that any of the Defendants committed in the State of New Mexico any actions that support his claims. . . ." (Doc. No. 160, pg 1). Mr. Anaeme appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is currently pending. There are currently 162 docket entries.
15. Anaeme v. Medical Staffing Network (MSN) Allied, et al., Civ. No. 05-412 (2005): On April 11, 2005, Mr. Anaeme, acting pro se, filed suit against Medical Staffing Network (MSN) Allied and over 15 other defendants ("the MSN defendants"). Mr. Anaeme alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race in his employment with the MSN defendants. Mr. Anaeme sought recovery under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and under state tort law for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Mr. Anaeme amended his complaint on May 20, 2005, to add the T or C defendants, the B.C.W. defendants, and the Hot Springs Venture Partnership defendants from Anaeme v. Truth or Consequences Police Dept., et. al., Civ. No. 04-790 (see ¶ 13, above). Mr. Anaeme alleged the same cause of action that had been dismissed with prejudice in 2004.
On June 27, 2005, the B.C.W. defendants filed a motion to dismiss, pointing out that the 2004 complaint was identical to the claims now being asserted against the defendants. The Hot Springs Venture Partnership defendants similarly filed a motion to dismiss one day later. Mr. Anaeme did not respond to either motion. The Court granted both motions and dismissed Mr. Anaeme's claims against the B.C.W. defendants and the Hot Springs Venture Partnership defendants with prejudice on July 29, 2005. Mr. Anaeme appealed the dismissal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal on October 24, 2005 after the Court denied Mr. Anaeme's request for a certification under FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). The case is still pending against the MSN defendants and the T or C defendants. This is the present case, and there are currently 61 docket entries.
16. Anaeme v. Medical Staffing Network (MSN) Allied, et al., Civ. No. 05-434 (2005): On March 16, 2005, Mr. Anaeme, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico State Court against the MSN defendants for "Debt and Monies owed." Mr. Anaeme contended that the MSN defendants owed him $400,000 "for fees and costs he incurred in reference to the New Mexico Department of Labor Wage claim investigation" associated with the termination of his employment with the MSN defendants. (Doc. No. 1).
The MSN defendants removed the case to this Court on April 18, 2005, based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The defendants that had been served by April 18, 2005 moved to dismiss the complaint. Mr. Anaeme did not respond. After considering the merits, District Judge James O. Browning granted the motion and dismissed the served defendants with prejudice. Judge Browning further dismissed, without prejudice, the unserved defendants because Mr. Anaeme indicated that "he did not intend to serve the remaining Defendants, that these Defendants were 'not important to serve,' [and] that they were 'not key to this case' . . ." (Doc. No. 16, pg. 2). Final judgment was entered on September 30, 2005, and Mr. Anaeme appealed Judge Browning's decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is pending, and there are currently 19 docket entries in the case.
17. Anaeme v. Walgreen Co., et al., Civ. No. 05-746 (2005): On July 8, 2005, Mr. Anaeme, again acting pro se, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Walgreen Co. and 45 individuals, arising from his employment with and termination from Walgreen's Pharmacy. Before any defendant had responded, Mr. Anaeme filed his First Amended Complaint, adding additional defendants. Mr. Anaeme attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint on August 4, 2005. The Second Amended Complaint, however, was stricken by District Judge William Johnson because of Mr. Anaeme's failure to seek consent of the defendants or leave of the court before filing it. Mr. Anaeme requested leave to file an amended complaint. However, Judge Johnson denied his request, finding that Mr. Anaeme's attempt to add more defendants to the case was an "effort to widen the net of potential defendants without having any valid basis for doing so." (Doc. No. 12, pg. 3). The case is still pending, and currently has 18 docket entries.
18. Anaeme v. Best Western Hot Springs Inn, et al., Civ. No 05-1068 (2005): On August 17, 2005, Mr. Anaeme, again acting pro se, filed suit in New Mexico State Court against the T or C defendants, the B.C.W. defendants, the Hot Springs Venture Partnership defendants, and the MSN defendants. Mr. Anaeme sought attorney's fees and costs associated with the prior suits against these defendants. See Anaeme v. Truth or Consequences Police Dept., et. al., Civ. No. 04-790 (see ¶ 13, above), Anaeme v. Medical Staffing Network (MSN) Allied, et al., Civ. No. 05-412 (see ¶ 15, above), and Anaeme v. Medical Staffing Network (MSN) Allied, et al., Civ. No. 05-434 (see ¶ 16, above).
Although both Mr. Anaeme and the T or C defendants, B.C.W. defendants, and the Hot Springs Venture Partnership defendants are residents of New Mexico, the MSN defendants removed the case to this Court, arguing that the non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined. The MSN defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 11, 2005, arguing that the case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and that Mr. Anaeme has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Hot Springs Venture Partnership defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 19, 2005. The case is still pending, and currently has 11 docket entries.
19. Anaeme v. Walgreen Co., et al., Civ. No. 05-1098 (2005): Mr. Anaeme filed suit against Walgreen Co. and 59 other individuals in New Mexico State Court on September 9, 2005, seeking $575,000 in legal fees and costs associated with his pursuit of wage and discrimination claims against Walgreen Co. The defendants removed the action to this Court on October 26, 2005. The case is pending, and currently has 4 docket entries.