Opinion
CV-07-91-B-W.
August 8, 2007
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND CAUTIONARY NOTICE
No objection having been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision filed July 6, 2007, the Recommended Decision is accepted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Plaintiff has 10 days to pay the filing fee, failing which, the Complaint will be dismissed.
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF:
As the Magistrate Judge noted, since 1988, Mr. Rowe has "initiated seventeen lawsuits in this court, including possibly up to seven or more Petitions for Habeas Corpus. Disregarding the Section 2254 cases, at least three of the remaining cases have been dismissed by the court as either frivolous or failing to state a claim." Recommended Decision at 2 (Docket # 4). In fact, Mr. Rowe recently filed four more suits in a matter of two weeks. See, e.g., Rowe v. Blake, CV-07-86-B-W (filed June 28, 2007), Rowe v. Turner, CV-07-87-B-W (filed June 28, 2007), Rowe v. Riley, CV-07-91-B-W (filed July 5, 2007); Rowe v. Polly, CV-07-94-B-W (filed July 10, 2007).
In Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, the First Circuit observed that before a court issues an injunction restricting a litigant's access to federal court, he should be "warned or otherwise given notice that filing restrictions were contemplated." 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993). In accordance with Cok and consistent with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court hereby CAUTIONS Mr. Rowe and places him on NOTICE that filing restrictions "may be in the offing." Id.; see also Murphy v. Maine, No. CV-06-62-GZS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69057, at *13 (D. Me. Sept. 25, 2006). Mr. Rowe is hereby notified that "`[g]roundless and inappropriate filings will not be tolerated.'" In re Kelly, Misc. No. 07-81-B-K, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47168, at *3 (D. Me. June 28, 2007) (quoting Deep v. Boies, CV-07-53-P-H, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46400, at *1-2 (D. Me. June 26, 2007)); In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litig., 456 F. Supp. 2d 131, 164 (D. Me. 2006). The restrictions may include an injunction against any further filings with the Court without prior judicial approval. See Lipin v. Ellis, No. 07-92-P-S, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54489, at *51-52 (D. Me. July 26, 2007).
SO ORDERED.