Opinion
Civil Action. No. 05-095, Section "R" (1).
September 12, 2006
ORDER AND REASONS
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Dino Alexis Bellazerius. Before the Court are plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and motion to strike Bellazerius's counterclaim. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, and the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's counterclaim.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
On June 24, 1992, defendant Dino Bellazerius entered a plea of guilty to a charge of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in the United States District Court for the District of Louisiana. United States v. Dino Bellazerius, et al., No. 91-CR-560 at R. Doc. 1. On April 26, 1995, United States District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman sentenced Bellazerius to 262 months of imprisonment followed by 10 years of supervised release. Id. at R. Doc. 169.
After the Court imposed the sentence, Bellazerius filed a series of groundless motions, including, a "Motion for Disclosure of the Character of a United States Court" and a motion for a "Writ of Error Coram Nobis." Id. at R. Docs. 234, 267, and 257. Defendant's filings also included incoherent allegations against Judge Feldman. As a result, Judge Feldman recused himself from Bellazerius's criminal case and ordered Bellazerius to stop communicating with him. Id. at R. Doc. 256. On August 5, 2002, United States District Judge Ivan Lemelle denied Bellazerius's motion for dismissal of the indictment against him, and expressed frustration with Bellazerius's frivolous and abusive filings. Judge Lemelle cautioned Bellazerius against filing further meritless motions. Id. at R. Doc. 263.
Notwithstanding these developments, Bellazerius continued to send frivolous motions and pleadings to the Court. Id. at R. Doc 267, 269, 271. On January 26, 2004, Bellazerius sent a letter to Judge Feldman requesting various documents and threatening the Judge with legal action: "And upon your failure to provide Proof of Claim, presumption will be taken that said failure, refusal and/or silence grants the Undersigned, as a matter of right, to move by agreement that a lien and/or tort can be filed against you for said damages, injury and dishonor." Id. at R. Doc. 271. In a minute entry, Judge Lemelle "dismissed" the letter with prejudice as frivolous and harassing and required that any further filings from Bellazerius be reviewed by the district judge assigned to the case before they could be received into the record. Id. at R. Doc. 272. Bellazerius sent a similar letter to former Assistant United States Attorney Gaynell Williams. (R. Doc. 15-6, Ex. C).
In March of 2004, Bellazerius sent Judge Feldman a document entitled "Notice of Fault — Opportunity to Cure." (R. Doc. 15-7, Ex. D). Although the document is mostly incoherent, it is clear that Bellazerius meant to challenge the validity of his criminal conviction. Id. On December 21, 2004, Bellazerius sent a document entitled "Presentment" to the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Id. at Ex. E-1. The document referred to Judge Feldman, Judge Lemelle, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Gaynell Williams, and former U.S. Marshal Theophile Duroncelet. Id. Bellazerius included in the document a copy of a Security Agreement, filed on December 13, 2004 with the Recorder of Mortgages in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. Bellazerius listed the same four federal officials on the Certificate of Service. Id. at Ex. E-2. Although the document's actual effect is not clear, it purports to impose a lien or other property obligation on the named officials.
B. Procedural History
The United States, through the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, filed this suit on its own behalf and on behalf of United States District Judges Martin L.C. Feldman and Ivan L.R. Lemelle, former Assistant United States Attorney Gaynell Williams, and former United States Marshal Theophile Duroncelet.
The United States seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to stop Bellazerius's "threatening, abusive, misleading, repetitious, frivolous, retaliatory, and baseless correspondence, communications, and filings, including purported Uniform Commercial Code liens," against the named federal officials involved in Bellazerius's federal criminal prosecution and conviction. (R. Doc. 1, ¶ 6).
The United States asks the Court for a declaratory judgment nullifying all instruments filed by Bellazerius that purport to affect the assets of the named federal officials. Id. at p. 6. The United States also seeks injunctive relief restraining Bellazerius from communicating with any of the named federal officials. Id. at pp. 6-7. The complaint also requests a permanent injunction barring Bellazerius from filing and recording in any public records any document affecting any property, real or personal, belonging to or in the name of any of the named federal officials, without prior written authorization fro this Court. Id. at p. 7.
In his answer to the government's complaint, Bellazerius stipulated to the facts set forth in the complaint and asserted that "there exists NO controversy." (R. Doc. 4 at 1-2).
On May 11, 2006, the United States moved for summary judgment. (R. Doc. 15). On June 15, 2006, Bellazerius filed a Plea in Bar asserting that the United States is an improper plaintiff and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. (R. Doc. 18). On the same day, Bellezerius filed a "compulsory counterclaim" against the United States, seeking ten million dollars in damages for the imposition of "involuntary servitude via malicious prosecution." (R. Doc. 19). On June 27, 2006, the United States moved the Court to strike defendant Bellazerius's counterclaim.
II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1345 clearly provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by Acts of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1345; see also U.S. v. Ekblad 732 F.2d 562,563 (7th Cir. 1984) ("Congress had vested in the district court jurisdiction over `any case commenced by the United States.'") (per curiam). District courts have exercised jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under circumstances indistinguishable from the facts of this case; these judgments have been affirmed. See U.S. v. McKinley, 53 F.3d 1170, 1171-72 (10th Cir. 1995); U.S. v. Bey, 149 F.3d 1185, 1185 (6th Cir. 1998). Because this is a civil action instituted by the United States, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.
III. THE UNITED STATES IS A PROPER PLAINTIFF
Defendant argues that the United States is an improper plaintiff because "the Department of Justice is an executive agency located at the seat of government (District of Columbia) and must have special authorization from Congress to operate outside of that jurisdiction." (R. Doc. 18). That contention is without merit, as the United States Attorney is authorized to prosecute civil actions on behalf of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 547(2).
Defendant also contends that the United States does not qualify as an injured party and therefore, lacks standing to bring the case. (R. Doc. 18). In U.S. v. Speight, 2001 WL 539610 at *3 (D. Conn 2001), the court noted that it is "well settled that the United States has standing to bring . . . an action brought by the United States to protect federal employees from harassment." See also U.S. v. Poole, 916 F.Supp. 861 (C.D. Ill. 1996) ("the United States has standing to seek relief from actual or threatened interference with the performance of its proper governmental function.") (citation omitted). This case clearly falls within the ambit of "actual interference" with governmental functions. "There is no First Amendment right to harass, intimidate, and attempt to extort federal officials," nor is there a right to use liens with no basis in fact or law to pursue such improper purposes. See U.S. v. Barker, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 1383-84 (S.D. Ga. 1998) (holding that purported liens against federal officials were invalid and enjoining the defendant from filing further such documents). Here, Bellazerius filed frivolous liens or actions purporting to create property obligations against these federal officials in retaliation for their involvement in his federal criminal prosecution. The United States has an interest in protecting its employees from such egregious forms of retaliatory harassment arising out of actions pertaining to their official duties. Whenever courts have confronted attempts by prisoners and tax protesters to harass, intimidate or extort federal officials and employees by filing "liens" against their property, the courts have recognized the right of the United States to seek to invalidate them. See Barker, 19 F. Supp. 2d at 1383-84; see also, e.g., McKinley, 53 F.3d at 1171-72; U.S. v. Reeves, 782 F.2d 1323, 1326 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 837 (1986); Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1327 (9th Cir. 1985); Ekblad 732 F.2d at 564 (per curiam); U.S. v. MacElvain, 858 F.Supp, 1096 (M.D. Ala. 1994), aff'd (11th Cir. 1995); U.S. v. Thomas, 819 F.Supp. 927 (D. Colo. 1993); Saenger v. Brown, 1998 WL 184863 (D. Ore. 1998); Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F.Supp. 50, 55 (E.D. Wis. 1985); U.S. v. Shugarman, 596 F.Supp. 186, 193 (E.D. Va. 1984); U.S. v. Van Dyke, 568 F.Supp. 820,822 (D. Ore. 1983). It is therefore well settled that the United States has an interest in protecting its employees from retaliatory harassment motivated by conduct related to their official capacities.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case and the United States has standing to bring this action against the defendant.
IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues as to any material facts, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986). A court must be satisfied that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmoving party. Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 178 (5th Cir. 1990). The moving party bears the burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact.
If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by pointing out that the evidence in the record contains insufficient proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; see also Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 178. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The nonmovant may not rest upon the pleadings, but must identify specific facts that establish that a genuine issue exists for trial. See Id. at 325; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1996). The Fifth Circuit has held that courts "resolve factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts." Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.
B. Discussion
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Bellazerius, and drawing all inferences in his favor, the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 56. The evidence offered by the government establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the documents in question were filed or sent by the defendant. Further, the documents themselves demonstrate that any purported effect on the property of the named federal officials arises not out of any valid commercial obligation, but out of a desire to visit retribution on them for their involvement in his criminal prosecution and conviction. Bellazerius has offered no evidence to contradict this conclusion or otherwise justify the documents. Neither federal nor state law provides that a citizen may file a lien on the property of a public official if the citizen believes that the official has not faithfully fulfilled his or her duties to the public. Barker, 19 F. Supp. 2d at 1384. Indeed, judges and prosecutors are absolutely immune for actions taken in their official capacities under both state and federal law. See McKinley, 53 F.3d at 1172. Hence, their official conduct gives rise to no claims on which liens or other legal instruments filed by criminal defendants could be based. Furthermore, it is also undisputed that Bellazerius attempted to communicate with Judge Feldman, in violation of both Judge Feldman's and Judge Lemelle's orders forbidding him to do so.
The power of a federal court to invalidate improper liens filed to intimidate, harass or extort federal officials is well-established. See Barker, 19 F. Supp. 2d at 1383-84 (collecting cases in which courts have invalidated phony liens); see also Bey, 149 F.3d at 1185 (noting that a district court may grant declaratory and injunctive relief in such circumstances); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. Accordingly, the Court may declare any liens, security agreements, or other documents purporting to affect or encumber the property rights of the named federal officials to be null, void, and of no legal effect.
Faced with continuous attempts at harassment, a court may also issue an injunction against further vexatious liens and court filings. See Barker, 19 F. Supp. 2d at 1385 (enjoining the filing of baseless liens by the defendant or the recording of those liens by any state or federal court); see also Harrelson v. United States, 613 F.2d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that "[t]he district court has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to enjoin litigants who are abusing the court system by harassing their opponents.") (citations omitted); Villar v. Crowley Maritime Corp., 990 F.2d 1489, 1499 (5th Cir. 1993) (stating that "federal courts have the power to enjoin plaintiffs who abuse the court system and harass their opponents"); Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295, 301-03 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding a district court's decision to enjoin the plaintiffs' counsel from filing future state court actions because their actions "constitute[d] a sufficiently serious and systematic abuse of the courts.").
The actions taken by Bellazerius have imposed significant costs in both time and expense to judicial personnel and resources. There is no reason to anticipate any interruption in Bellazerius's activities. Public officials subject to harassing and malicious filings, such as those Bellazerius has filed in this case cannot effectively perform their duties. When the actions of a litigant have the effect of disrupting the court's operations, injunctive relief is proper:
Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions. If such power did not exist, or if its exercise were somehow dependent upon the actions of another branch of government or upon the entitlement of a private party to injunctive relief, the independence and constitutional role of the Article III courts would be endangered.In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir. 1984). Under such circumstances, a federal court may issue a broad injunction to prevent future harassment. Id.; see also Barker, 19 F. Supp. 2d at 1385. Accordingly, in addition to invalidating the existing documents, the Court may enjoin the filing or transmitting of any documents purporting to attach or otherwise encumber any assets of any former or current federal official or employee. Barker, 19 F. Supp. 2d at 1385.
The United States of America has met the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Bellazerius has not contested the government's version of the facts and has sought dismissal of this suit through misguided procedural measures. In addition, Bellazerius has attempted to disrupt this litigation by filing a spurious counterclaim. The United States is therefore entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.
On July 10, 2006, Bellazerius sent a letter to the chambers of the undersigned indicating his continued objection to the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. Bellazerius further stated his desire to increase the amount of his counterclaim from $10,000,000 to $150,000,000. As the document was not properly filed with the Clerk of Court, the Court disregards it.
V. MOTION TO STRIKE
A. Legal Standard
Rule 12(f) proves that "the court may order stricken from any pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). A motion to strike under Rule 12(f) "is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice." Augustus v. Board of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Country, 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962) (quoting Brown v. Williamson Tobacco Corp. V. United States, 201 F.2d 819,822 (6th Cir. 1953)); see also Turner v. Ehticon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 2003 WL 22872103 (E.D. La. 2003) (noting that motions to strike are disfavored and courts grant them on an infrequent basis). Accordingly, such a motion should be granted only when "the allegations are prejudicial to the defendant or immaterial to the lawsuit." Johnson v. Harvey, 1998 WL 596745, at *7 (E.D. La. 1998) (quoting Veazie v. Southern Greyhound Lines, 374 F. Supp. 811, 815 (E.D. La. 1994)). Immateriality is established by showing the challenged allegations "can have no possible bearing upon the subject matter of the litigation." Sadler v. Benson Motors Corp., 1997 WL 266735, at *1 (E.D. La. 1997) (quoting Succession of Wardlaw v. Whitney Nat'l Bank, 1994 WL 479183, at *1 (E.D. La. 1994)). The court will not decide a disputed question of fact on a motion to strike. Succession of Wardlaw, 1994 WL 479183 at *1 (citing Augustus, 306 F.2d at 868).
B. Analysis
Judge Lemelle's order of February 11, 2004 provides that no further pleadings from Bellazerius shall be considered by the district judge to whom the matter is allotted unless the pleading is found to have merit. The counterclaim filed by Bellazerius asserts that, because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this suit, he is entitled to damages for the imposition of "involuntary servitude via malicious prosecution" by the United States in this matter. The Court has already ruled that Bellazerius's arguments against subject matter jurisdiction are without merit. His malicious prosecution claim is equally frivolous.
First, the malicious prosecution claim is incoherent. Second, in order to advance a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff typically must demonstrate the following elements:
(1) the institution or continuation of a legal proceeding, either civil or criminal, or an administrative or disciplinary proceeding, against the plaintiff;
(2) by, at the instance of, or abetted by, the defendant;
(3) the termination of such prior proceeding in the plaintiff's favor;
(4) the absence of probable cause for institution of the prior proceeding;
(5) malice as a primary purpose for that proceeding; and
(6) some injury or damage to the plaintiff as a result of the prior proceeding.See 7 AmJur Proof of Facts 2d 181, § 3 (2006). It is clear that Bellazerius's counterclaim does not meet most of these factors. In particular, a claim for malicious prosecution requires the initial suit to have been resolved in favor of the claimant. This case had not been resolved at the time of the counterclaim. Further, there was probable cause for the United States' case against Bellazerius. The counterclaim is immaterial to the lawsuit, contains impertinent material, is frivolous, and is ordered stricken.
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment by the United States be GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion by the United States to strike the defendant's counterclaim be GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
(1) That all liens, affidavits or other instruments filed by defendant, his agents or anyone in concert with him, in any state or federal court, or in the public records of any state, county, parish or municipality, that purports to attach, encumber, or otherwise affect the property or assets of the Honorable Martin L.C. Feldman, the Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, former Assistant United States Attorney Gaynell Williams, former United States Marshal Theophile Duroncelet, or any current or former federal official are invalid, null, void, and of no effect.
(2) That all such liens, affidavits or instruments be expunged from the public record or that a copy of this Order be filed with such liens or instruments to give notice of their invalidity. The United States Attorney's Office is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all courts or government agencies in which such liens, affidavits or instruments are filed or recorded. The United States Attorney may petition this Court for an award of costs for this procedure at the appropriate time.
(3) That defendant and his agents or any other persons acting in concert with him be permanently enjoined from filing in any state or federal court, or in the public records of any state, county, parish or municipality, any lien, affidavit or instrument purporting to attach, encumber, or otherwise affect the property or assets of the Honorable Martin L.C. Feldman, the Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, former Assistant United States Attorney Gaynell Williams, former United States Marshal Theophile Duroncelet, or any current or former federal official, without prior written authorization from this Court. Violation of this Order is grounds for the lien or instrument to be discarded or otherwise expunged from the public records and will be considered contempt of this Court.
(4) That defendant and his agents or any other persons acting in concert with him be permanently enjoined from giving notice to any person, credit agency, corporation, or other entity of the existence of any lien, affidavit or instrument, whether filed or unfiled, purporting to attach, encumber, or otherwise affect the property or assets of the Honorable Martin L.C. Feldman, the Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, former Assistant United States Attorney Gaynell Williams, former United States Marshal Theophile Duroncelet, or any current or former federal official, without prior written authorization from this Court. Violation of this Order will be considered contempt of this Court.
(5) That defendant and his agents or any other persons acting in concert with him be permanently enjoined from communicating with or attempting to contact the Honorable Martin L.C. Feldman, the Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, former Assistant United States Attorney Gaynell Williams, or former United States Marshal Theophile Duroncelet, for any reason, by any means, including, but not limited to, motions, notices, letters, or copies of legal instruments.