Alexander Patterson, IV v. George Sync, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Alexander Patterson, IV. Decision: Vacated and Remanded. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-13209

Date Filed: 04/05/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13209
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-01786-CAP
ALEXANDER PATTERSON, IV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE A. SYNC, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 5, 2017)
Before WILSON, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Patterson, IV, proceeding pro se, appeals from a district court
order adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) entering

Case: 15-13209

Date Filed: 04/05/2017

Page: 2 of 4

an injunction requiring Patterson to post a bond before filing certain future
lawsuits. For the reasons stated below, we vacate the injunction.
Patterson filed a complaint in forma pauperis (“IFP”) against current and
former Chatham County, Georgia District Attorneys. The magistrate judge
recommended dismissing Patterson’s complaint as frivolous.1 The magistrate
judge also noted that Patterson had filed frivolous lawsuits against approximately
20 defendants over a several month period. She therefore recommended that
Patterson be required to post a $10,000 bond as a condition of filing any future
actions against any bank, hospital, or government officer or entity. According to
the magistrate judge, the bond would provide a source from which sanctions could
be drawn if future claims were found to be groundless. Patterson did not object,
and the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s R&R in full.
Patterson’s appeal raises no identifiable issues. Even though we read briefs
filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned.
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). However, our precedent
recognizes a rare exception: “Whenever the record of a case on appeal discloses
plain error requiring corrective action in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice,

1

A judge of this Court granted Patterson leave to proceed IFP solely to the extent he
challenged the district court’s injunction, so we do not consider the dismissal of his complaint.
2

Case: 15-13209

Date Filed: 04/05/2017

Page: 3 of 4

this court may sua sponte reveal the error and decide the case accordingly.”
Cruthirds v. RCI, Inc., 624 F.2d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 1980).2
Here, the district court’s injunction requiring Patterson to post a hefty bond
before filing any future action against any bank, hospital, or governmental officer
or entity amounts to a miscarriage of justice. A litigant’s right of access to the
courts is “unquestionably a right of considerable constitutional significance.”
Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008). Courts may impose
conditions on access, but they also must ensure that “indigent litigants are not
completely prohibited from seeking judicial relief.” Id. at 1096–97. The record
here supports the conclusion that Patterson is indigent, with a monthly income of
less than $800. Given his meager income, requiring a $10,000 bond would have
the effect of completely barring Patterson’s access to federal court in cases against
the federal and state governments or their officers, as well as hospitals and banks.
Our conclusion here is no repudiation of the district court’s authority to
manage its own docket. “In devising methods to attain the objective of curtailing
the activity” of serial litigators, however, “courts must carefully observe the fine
line between legitimate restraints and an impermissible restriction on [such an
individual’s] constitutional right of access to the courts.” Procup v. Strickland,

2

Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to close of business on September
30, 1981 are binding on this Court. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th
Cir. 1981) (en banc).
3

Case: 15-13209

Date Filed: 04/05/2017

Page: 4 of 4

792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc). We instruct the district court on
remand that it may exercise its considerable discretion to take steps including any
of the measures outlined in our Procup3 opinion or to impose any other restriction
it deems appropriate, so long as such action also leaves Patterson with reasonable
ability to access the federal courts.
We vacate the district court’s injunction requiring Patterson to post a
$10,000 bond before filing future cases against certain persons or entities and
remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

3

Although Procup dealt with serial prisoner litigation, many of the steps we outlined in
Procup are equally applicable here. In that opinion, we noted that some district courts have:
—enjoined prisoner litigants from relitigating specific claims or claims arising
from the same set of factual circumstances;
—required litigants to accompany all future pleadings with affidavits certifying
that the claims being raised are novel, subject to contempt for false swearing;
—directed the litigant to attach to future complaints a list of all cases previously
filed involving the same, similar, or related cause of action, and to send an extra
copy of each pleading filed to the law clerk of the chief judge of the district;
—directed the litigant to seek leave of court before filing pleadings in any new or
pending lawsuit;
...
—limited the number of filings by a particular inmate[; and]
....
—limit[ed] . . . the number of pages to a complaint and other pleadings
....
Procup, 792 F.2d at 1072–73 (footnotes omitted).
4