Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:05-CV-219-A.
April 7, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER
This cause of action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a civil complaint by a prisoner seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
B. PARTIES
Plaintiff Eligah Darnell, Jr., an inmate at the Tarrant County jail, has filed suit naming as defendants three assistant district attorneys: Terry D. Lewis, James R. Hudson, and Gary Bruton; along with defense attorney Jerry L. Wood. No process has been issued to any defendant in this case.
C. LEGAL ANALYSIS
By this action Eligah Darnell, Jr. ("Darnell") has asserted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against several individuals involved in the prosecution of him before a state district court in Tarrant County, Texas. Court records reveal that plaintiff Darnell asserted a complaint against these same defendants in Darnell v. Lewis, No. 4:04-CV-629-Y. In that case, the Court imposed a sanction upon Darnell for providing deliberately misleading information, by ordering him to pay a § 150.00 monetary sanction, and dismissing the case with prejudice to refiling until the sanction was paid in full. Although Darnell filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that Court affirmed the dismissal and imposition of a monetary sanction:
A review of this record and prior suits filed by Darnell reflect that Darnell engaged in contumacious behavior warranting the sanctions imposed. Because it is clear that Darnell deliberately misled the district court in his response to the inquiry in the complaint and also continued to do so when asked to show cause, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction of dismissal pending payment of a monetary sanction.
Darnell v. Lewis, et al. No. 04-11331 (5th Cir. April 5, 2005) (mandate not yet issued) (unpublished-copy attached as Exhibit 1).
In the complaint in the above-styled and numbered action, Darnell has listed the three of the same defendants as in the prior case, and asserted in his statement of claim section V virtually the same recitation as in case number 4:04-CV-629. Furthermore, although Darnell has submitted with the form complaint in this action five new handwritten pages entitled "Brief in Support," he has otherwise attached copies of the same nine handwritten pages detailing allegations against "defendants #1, #2 and #3" as he submitted with the form complaint in case number 4:04-CV-629. But, Darnell has not paid any amount towards the $150.00 sanction previously imposed. Thus, it appears this civil action should be dismissed as barred by Darnell's failure to comply with the terms of the Order of Dismissal in case number 4:04-CV-629.
Because the case was submitted for filing in direct violation of a prior order of the Court, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be DENIED.
Darnell was already sanctioned by this Court in case number 4:04-CV-629 for providing deliberately misleading information. At that time, the Court found that Darnell was expressly aware of the potential for sanctions, including the possibility of dismissal of the action with prejudice. The Court imposed a lesser sanction, however, directing that Darnell satisfy a monetary obligation before being allowed to re-file the same claims. By the filing of the same claims in this action without payment of the monetary assessment, Darnell has further displayed bad faith and a willful disregard and abuse of judicial process. Darnell acknowledged in the form complaint in the instant case that the sanction imposed upon him in 4:04-CV-629 had not been lifted or otherwise satisfied. Nevertheless, he filed this suit.
It appears that Darnell's filing of the instant action, in direct disregard of an order of this Court, is in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1). Under both the Court's inherent authority and under Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it appears appropriate to impose upon Darnell the sanction of dismissal of this case with prejudice and any monetary sanction deemed appropriate, unless he can show cause in any written objections why the filing of the instant case has not violated Rule 11.
A federal district court has inherent authority to manage its affairs and preserve the authority of the court, including the power to sanction a party. See Scaife v. Associated Air Center, Inc., 100 F.3d 406, 411 (5th Cir. 1996), citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991); see also Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995). Such power must be exercised with restraint, and should be confined to instances of "bad faith or willful abuse of the judicial process." Woodson, 57 F.3d at 1417 (citations omitted).
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED and the action be DISMISSED, for failure to comply with the prior order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It is further RECOMMENDED that, unless Darnell can show cause why additional sanctions should not be imposed, all claims in the instant case should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and an appropriate monetary sanction should be imposed upon Darnell.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten (10) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The court is extending the deadline within which to file specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation until April 28, 2005. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific written objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual finding and legal conclusion if it has been accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); Carter v. Collins, 918 F. 2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1990).ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Petitioner is granted until April 28, 2005 to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and is hereby, returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-11331 Summary Calendar
ELIGAH DARNELL, JR Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TERRY LEWIS, Assistant District Attorney, Tarrant County, JAMES HUDSON, Assistant District Attorney, Tarrant County; JERRY L WOOD Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CV-629
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Eligah Darnell, Jr., Texas state prisoner # 0279245, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint unless Darnell pays monetary sanctions of $150. Darnell argues that he inadvertently erroneously answered a question in the complaint concerning prior lawsuits that he had filed.
A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). A review of this record and prior suits filed by Darnell reflect that Darnell engaged in contumacious behavior warranting the sanctions imposed. Because it is clear that Darnell deliberately misled the district court in his response to the inquiry in the complaint and also continued to do so when asked to show cause, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction of dismissal pending payment of a monetary sanction. The dismissal is AFFIRMED.
Darnell's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.