Opinion
No. 3:05-CV-0181-D.
February 7, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
On January 25, 2005, the Court received the instant civil complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis from plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail. He names Lupa Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff; and the State of Texas as defendants. No process has been issued in this case.
II. PRIOR SANCTIONS
In August 1995, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered that "plaintiff may not file any further complaints or petitions in this District without leave of court." Starks-el v. United States, No. 6:95cv239, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 1995). The Eastern District directed its Clerk of Court to "return all future actions to plaintiff unless he has sought and received leave from the court to file such action." Id.
This Court "observe[s] and enforce[s] sanctions imposed by another federal court in Texas involving Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmates who file pleadings in this District, unless the sanctioned inmate establishes a change of circumstances or otherwise demonstrates that enforcing such previously imposed sanctions would be unjust." MISC. ORDER 48. This miscellaneous order applies equally to Texas inmates housed in county jails. See Oliver v. Bowles, No. 3:04-CV-1809-N, 2004 WL 2216597, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2004) (applying MISC. ORDER 48 to inmate in Dallas County Jail), accepted by slip op. (N.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2004). Plaintiff has shown no change in circumstances or otherwise demonstrated that it would be unjust to enforce the sanctions imposed by the Eastern District of Texas in this district. Accordingly, he must obtain judicial permission before filing any action in this Court. In the absence of such pre-approval, the Court should deny in forma pauperis status to plaintiff and dismiss this action.
The Court declines to construe the documents filed in this action as a request for judicial pre-approval. Nothing in the documents indicate that plaintiff seeks approval to file the action. Plaintiff simply filed his complaint in this Court without seeking leave to file it. If plaintiff desires to file an action in this Court, he must comply with the sanction order of the Eastern District of Texas by filing a proper motion that seeks leave to file his civil complaint.