Summary
warning a vexatious litigant who sued the judge that "further frivolous and abusive filings" would result in sanctions
Summary of this case from Edokobi v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.Opinion
Case No. 6:07-cv-566-Orl-31KRS.
June 1, 2007
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Plaintiff, Alan Wayne Davis ("Davis"), has filed a 138-page complaint (Doc. 1), asserting violations of various state and federal laws, constitutional provisions, and county ordinances by somewhere upward of 100 defendants. The instant suit is the latest installment in a 13-year soap opera arising from allegations that Davis engaged in illegal dumping and created a public nuisance. In the complaint, Davis insults, threatens, and smears every individual even peripherally involved in the dispute. Neighbors, law enforcement officers, judges and members of the legislature are accused at great length and in stultifying detail of having conspired to railroad Davis, or of having violated the same laws he was convicted of violating, or of failing to admit the unconstitutionality of those laws and have them overturned.
Even a cursory review of the pleadings in this case and those available in the public record makes it plain that Davis employs the legal system as a tool to intimidate and heckle those he imagines have done him wrong, rather than as a forum for the redress of legitimate grievances. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 928 So.2d 442, 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (denying petition for habeas corpus and warning plaintiff to cease filing documents containing "scurrilous language directed at the Attorney General, assistant attorney generals, and the judges on this court"). After the state appellate court denied his petition for habeas corpus, Davis informed the justices of the Florida Supreme Court that they should accept jurisdiction of his appeal unless they wished "to be prosecuted along with the Fifth District Court of Appeal Judges who issued the opinions". Davis v. State, 2006 WL 2952300 at * 5. His brief to the Florida Supreme Court was shot through with the same sort of threatening and venomous invective that angered the Fifth District Court of Appeal and which pollutes his filings before this Court. Id. at *4-*5 (stating that "Its [sic] time this court starts respecting truth" and "[I]f the federal court rules that judges have no expressed or applied immunity from prosecution under 403.413(4)(c), none of you will continue to be judges because I'll demand your removal using your own rulings.").
The United States Courts are not powerless to protect the public, including litigants, from the depredations of those who abuse the process of the Courts to harass and annoy others with meritless, frivolous, vexatious or repetitive proceedings. In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2d Cir. 1984). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has recognized the power of the District Court to dismiss frivolous suits without notice to the parties. See Jefferson Fourteenth Associates v. Wometco de Puerto Rico, Inc., 695 F.2d 524, 526 (11th Cir. 1983) (noting court's broad, inherent power to dismiss actions that are, inter alia, frivolous, harassing, or vexatious). These proceedings eminently qualify for such treatment.
Davis has included the undersigned amongst the putative defendants in this case. Normally, being named as a defendant would require recusal: 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(I) provides that a judge shall disqualify himself when he is a party to the proceeding. However, such disqualification is not required where the litigant baselessly sues or threatens to sue the judge. In re Hipp, Inc., 5 F.3d 109 (5th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Grismore, 564 F.2d 929 (10th Cir. 1977); Bush v. Cheatwood, 2005 WL 3542484 (N.D.Ga. 2005). The allegations involving the undersigned are as frivolous as the remainder of the complaint, and recusal is therefore not required.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. The Plaintiff is warned that further frivolous and abusive filings before this Court will result in sanctions. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.