From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kirksey v. Brennan

United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
Jan 21, 2022
No. 21-CV-588-JPS (E.D. Wis. Jan. 21, 2022)

Opinion

19-CV-1278-JPS 21-CV-588-JPS 21- CV-1169-JPS 21- CV-1170-JPS 21- CV-1193-JPS 21- CV-1252-JPS 21-CV-1357-JPS

01-21-2022

TERRANCE LAVELL KIRKSEY, Plaintiff, v. CORY BRENNAN, JAMES KREIN, IV, JAVIER VEGA, MYLES SMITH, STEPHEN VANG, JASON KENESIE, ROBERT SHREI, AARON DILLHOFF, KENOSHA POLICE DEPARTMENT, and WCI PRISON FACILITY, Defendants. TERRANCE LAVELL KIRKSEY, Plaintiff, v. C.O. ANTHONY MATUSHAK, RACHEL MATUSHAK, MICHAEL COLE, SGT. GOMM, and WARDEN DYLON RADTKE, Defendants. TERRANCE LAVELL KIRKSEY, Plaintiff, v. LT. ROZMARNOSKI, C.O. DORSEY, SGT. BAMBKE, DR. BREEN, K. GRABOWSKI, M. HAESE, E. DAVISON, C. O'DONNELL, and BHS NURSING CORDINATOR, Defendants. TERRANCE LAVELL KIRKSEY, Plaintiff, v. SGT. MATUSHAK, M. HAESE, J. PERTTU, E. DAVIDSON, K. GRABOWSKI, and C. O'DONNELL, Defendants. TERRANCE LAVELL KIRKSEY, Plaintiff, v. CO HOFFMAN, CO KORPITA, CO PHILLIPS, CPT. CUSHING, K. GRABOWSKI, and WARDEN DYLAN RADTKE, Defendants. TERRANCE LAVELL KIRKSEY, Plaintiff, v. H. UTTER, A. DEGROOT, R. SNOW, E. DAVIDSON, BHS NURSING CORDINATOR, and C. O'DONNELL, Defendants. TERRANCE LAVELL KIRKSEY, Plaintiff, v. SGT KOELLER, DR BREEN, and JOHN DOES, Defendants.


ORDER

J. P. Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge

Plaintiff Terrance Lavell Kirksey (“Kirksey”), an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, has filed fifteen cases since 2019. All of Kirksey's cases are § 1983 civil rights cases. Specifically, Kirksey has filed the following cases:

Dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies Awaiting trial scheduling order Dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies Voluntarily dismissed

Date

Filed Case

Number Disposition

4/25/2019

19-CV-602

9/3/2019

19-CV-1278

9/10/2019

19-CV-1310

2/24/2020

20-CV-299

Voluntarily dismissed Voluntarily dismissed Voluntarily dismissed Voluntarily dismissed Dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies Awaiting screening Awaiting screening Awaiting screening Awaiting screening Awaiting screening Awaiting screening

2/24/2020

20-CV-301

2/24/2020

20-CV-303

2/24/2020

20-CV-304

5/6/2020

20-CV-701

9/3/2020

20-CV-1364

5/10/2021

21-CV-588

10/8/2021

21-CV-1169

10/8/2021

21-CV-1170

10/14/2021

21-CV-1193

10/27/2021

21-CV-1252

11/23/2021

21-CV-1357

The right of access to federal courts is not absolute. In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903, 905 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing United States ex rel. Verdone v. Cir. Ct. for Taylor Cnty., 73 F.3d 669, 674 (7th Cir. 1995)). Individuals are “only entitled to meaningful access to the courts.” Id. (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996)). “Every paper filed . . . no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources. A part of the Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989).

A federal court's inherent powers include “the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), gives district courts the “inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants.” Orlando Residence Ltd. v. GP Credit Co., LLC, 609 F.Supp.2d 813, 816-17 (E.D. Wis. 2009) (citing Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007)). “A filing restriction must, however, be narrowly tailored to the type of abuse, and must not bar the courthouse door absolutely.” Chapman v. Exec. Comm., 324 Fed.Appx. 500, 502 (7th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Generally, filing bars will be upheld if they are (1) narrowly tailored; (2) not a complete bar on filing; and (3) lift once the abusive practices have ceased. Id.; Smith v. United States Cong., No. 19-CV-1001-PP, 2019 WL 6037487, at *9 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 14, 2019).

Kirksey has filed fifteen cases in this district since 2019. He voluntarily dismissed five of these cases before completion of the required screening process; three more were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, leaving seven cases currently pending before the Court. Without doubt, the Court finds that Kirksey has abused the right of access the Court with filings wholly lacking in merit. More importantly, while every litigant, including Kirksey, is entitled to their day in court, they are not entitled to someone else's day in court by drawing upon this Court's limited resources to adjudicate cases determined early on to be frivolous and without merit.

Therefore, in this instance, the Court finds it appropriate to impose a filing bar limiting Kirksey to proceeding with only two cases at any one time. Accordingly, the Court will order Kirksey to file a letter with the Court within 30 days of this Order indicating on which two of his seven open cases (19-CV-1278, 21-CV-588, 21-CV-1169, 21-CV-1170, 21-CV-1193, 21-CV-1252 and 21-CV-1357) he would like to proceed. The remaining five cases will then be administratively closed subject to a motion to reopen after such time as the number of Kirksey's pending cases falls below two. In addition, Kirksey may only file, or move to reopen an administratively-closed case, if he provides the Court with clearly labeled evidence that he has, in fact, exhausted his administrative remedies as to the case in question. Such clearly labeled evidence may consist of a copy of the inmate complaint he submitted to the complaint examiner, as well as copies of any appeals. This pre-filing bar is narrowly tailored to address the primary issue with Kirksey's filings- namely that they are preemptive- while avoiding an indefinite bar on access to the courts. Kirksey may move to modify or rescind this bar no earlier than three years after the date of this Order. See Smith, 2019 WL 6037487, at *11.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Terrance Lavell Kirksey is BARRED from filing any new civil cases in this district that do not include clearly labeled evidence of exhaustion of the claims therein;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with the terms of this Order, the Clerk of Court shall return any new case filings received from, or on behalf of, Terrance Lavell Kirksey back to him unfiled, together with a copy of this Order, if those filings do not include clearly labeled evidence of exhaustion; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 30 days of this Order, Plaintiff Terrance Lavell Kirksey is to file a letter to the Court indicating the two cases on which he would like to proceed.


Summaries of

Kirksey v. Brennan

United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
Jan 21, 2022
No. 21-CV-588-JPS (E.D. Wis. Jan. 21, 2022)
Case details for

Kirksey v. Brennan

Case Details

Full title:TERRANCE LAVELL KIRKSEY, Plaintiff, v. CORY BRENNAN, JAMES KREIN, IV…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin

Date published: Jan 21, 2022

Citations

No. 21-CV-588-JPS (E.D. Wis. Jan. 21, 2022)

Citing Cases

Fitzgerald v. Murray

Kirksey v. Brennan, 2022 WL 190762, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 21, 2022) (internal citations and quotation…