Opinion
No. 4:04-cv-00174-BAE.
June 7, 2005
ORDER
In this breach of employment contract (etc.) action, Julius S. Baker, Sr., pro se, alleges that defendant African Methodist Episcopal Church (the Church) and one of its bishops wrongfully terminated and defamed him. Doc. # 2. He unsuccessfully moved for preliminary injunctive relief, then for a Writ of Mandamus and for a Temporary Injunction. Doc. # 23. Citing prior adverse judgments against Baker on the same subject matter, defendants moved to dismiss and for a relitigation injunction against him. Doc. # 12.
In its 4/22/05 Order, the Court dismissed Baker's case on res judicata grounds and directed him to show cause why it should not (a) enjoin him from filing any more lawsuits; (b) sanction him $500 for being a "litigation menace"; and (c) publish its opinion. Doc. # 31. Baker has since filed a response and also moves for a "new trial." Doc. ## 34, 35.
Plaintiff's "new trial" motion (there has been no trial in this case) rehashes his case on the merits, see, e.g., doc. # 34 ¶ 3 (insisting that the Court's Order "is contrary to [his] Church's positive laws, Corporate By Laws and articles of Incorporation/Constitution Supreme Church case laws"); ¶ 10, while his response brief plies the same rehash (doc. # 35 ¶ 9) and otherwise fails to show why the Court should not enjoin and sanction him.
Bearing in mind that "[t]he central goal of [F.R.Civ.P.] 11 is to deter abusive litigation practices," Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc. of Peoria, 388 F.3d 990, 1013 (7th Cir. 2004), the Court incorporates its 4/22/05 Order and, under F.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1)(B) and its inherent power, permanently enjoins Julius S. Baker, Sr., from either directly or indirectly litigating against the African Methodist Episcopal Church or any of its members, employees or agents, any further in any court. See Smith v. Woosley, 399 F.3d 428, 431-34 (2nd Cir. 2005) (under 28 U.S.C. § 2283, federal court can enjoin relitigation in any court, including state courts); Vines v. Univ. of La. at Monroe, 398 F.3d 700, 704-05 (5th Cir. 2005); Mazur v. Woodson, 191 F.Supp.2d 676, 684 (E.D.Va. 2002) (applying sanctions in the form of a pre-filing injunction against repeat-litigation filers); 17 WRIGHT MILLER FED. PRAC. PROC. Juris.2d § 4226 (Supp. 2005).
Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 65(d), this injunction is binding upon Julius S. Baker and any agent, servant, employee, or attorney acting on his behalf, including any individuals in active concert with him who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise.
The Court also imposes against Baker a $500.00, Rule 11(c)(1)(B) sanction, to be immediately paid by cash or check "payable to The Clerk of Court." See doc. # 31 at 4 (collecting Rule 11 cases). Plaintiff is free to appeal this injunction and file any legitimate, appeal-related materials, as well as respond to any further defense filings.
Meanwhile, the Court is publishing this and its prior opinion to enable any church affiliates not involved in this case to discover this injunction and move this Court to impose criminal contempt sanctions against him for any future violations of this injunction. Finally, the Clerk shall forward this opinion, along with the Court's 4/22/05 Order (doc. # 31), to the U.S. Marshal for personal service upon the plaintiff.