Scott v. Mattin

Full title: DALLAS WAYNE SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. SHELLEY MATTIN, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Jan 26, 2004

Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-1290-K (N.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-1290-K.

January 26, 2004

ORDER

ED KINKEADE, District Judge

On January 14, 2004, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to file a complaint which states a claim on which relief can be granted by January 24, 2004, or suffer dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff responded to the Court's order on January 20, 2004.

In Plaintiff's response, he stated that he is not suing Defendants based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as Defendants anticipated. Instead, he says the case is "based on 1988 Federal ruling. . . . If there is confusion it was my intent to put 1988 . . . because of the Waiver of Tort as covered under the 1988 ruling."

In order to survive dismissal of this action under Rule 12(b)(6), Plaintiff's complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations on every material element of a cause of action to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory. See Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 975 (5^th Cir. 1995). Neither Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, nor his response to the Court's January 14 order, meet this standard. Therefore, Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Additionally, the Court's January 14 order stated that "if Plaintiff fails to file a satisfactory amended complaint ten days from the date of this order, Plaintiff's case will be dismissed, and he will be required to obtain the permission of a District Court in this District before filing future suits in federal court in this District." Because Plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, he is barred from proceeding with any suit seeking relief in this District without first seeking and obtaining permission of a District Court in this District.

This sanction is appropriate because over the past several years, Plaintiff has filed multiple suits in this District which have either been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. In the process of filing these suits, Plaintiff has cost the courts of this District scare judicial resources. By screening future suits filed by Plaintiff, the courts of this District will save judicial resources and ensure that meritorious matters are heard more promptly.

SO ORDERED.