Opinion
Civil Action 4:23-CV-685-P
07-12-2023
ERIC L. ELLIS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FORT WORTH, ET AL., Defendants.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEFFREY L. CURETON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On July 5, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Eric L. Ellis (“Ellis”) filed a Complaint [doc. 1] against Defendants City of Fort Worth, Officer Carlos Daniel Cervantes, and Officer Matthew Anderson in the above-styled and referenced case. The instant case is Ellis' tenth case to file as Plaintiff in the Northern District of Texas seventeen months:
The closed cases were dismissed pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and/or the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Case Number
Style
Date Filed
Date Closed
3:23-CV-1508-N
Ellis v. City of Grand Prairie, et al.
07/05/23
Pending
4:23-CV-684-P
Ellis v. City of Grand Prairie, et al.
07/5/23
Consolidated with 3:23-CV-150-N.
3:22-CV-265-B
Ellis v. Police Dept. of Irving, et al.
02/03/22
05/23/22
3:22-CV-675-N
Ellis v. Gaza-Lopez, et al.
03/23/22
01/06/23
4:22-CV-1020-Y
Ellis v. Cargill Meat Sols.
11/16/22
12/08/22
4:22-CV-864-Y
Ellis v. Cargill Meat Sols., et al.
09/26/22
Pending
4:22-CV-1028-P
Ellis v. City of White Settlement, et al.
11/17/22
Pending
4:22-CV-1033-O
Ellis v. City of White Settlement
11/21/22
11/22/22
4:22-CV-1095-O
Ellis, et al. v. City of White Settlement, et al.
12/09/22
Pending
4:22-CV-685-P
Ellis v. City of Fort Worth, et al.
07/05/23
Pending
Courts possess the inherent power “to protect the efficient and orderly administration of justice and . . . to command respect for the court's orders, judgments, procedures, and authority.” Obama v. United States, No. 3:09-CV-226-, 2010 WL 668847, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2010) (quoting In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993)). Included in this inherent power is the “power to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices.” Obama, 2010 WL 668847 at *5. Sanctions may be appropriate when a pro se litigant has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191-195-97 (5th Cir. 1993)). Pro se litigants have “no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Hous., N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). Courts in the Fifth Circuit have adopted the Tenth Circuits advisory that “injunctions restricting further filings are appropriate where the litigant's lengthy and abusive history is set forth,” and that is proper for the court to “provide[] guidelines as to what the litigant may do to obtain its permission to file and action,” provided that the “litigant received notice and an opportunity to oppose the court's order before it was implemented.” Flores v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 1:14-CV-198 2015 WL 1088782, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2015) (citing Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted)). The undersigned FINDS that Ellis' litigation history has risen to the prevalence and level of harassment that existed in the cases cited above where sanctions were deemed appropriate. Ellis is hereby warned that sanctions may be imposed for any future abusive litigation practices. The Court would also direct that Ellis be required to obtain leave of court by motion before filing suit in this district.
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Ellis is declared a vexatious litigant and that the District Court warn Ellis by order that (1) monetary sanctions may be imposed for future vexatious litigation considered to be abusive and harassing in nature, and (2) that Ellis must obtain leave to court by filing a motion before he is permitted to file any additional complaints in this district.
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until JULY 26, 2023, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.