Addison v. Martin
ORDER of clarification regarding restricted filer status. Addison is hereby instructed that it is the clerk's office, not Addison, that must obtain prior approval before Addison's papers can be filed. Each of Addison's filings is re viewed to determine whether approval for its filing should be given. So, there is nothing more that Addison can do except pay the filing fee or otherwise escape the three-strike ban to proceed in forma pauperis. Until then, Addison's frivolous filings will be returned to him as has been done for the past thirteen months. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/11/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00314 BSM
Plaintiff Nicholas Addison forwarded a letter requesting clarification on his restricted
filer status [Doc. No. 20]. By way of background, Addison was placed on a district-wide
restricted filer list after most of his over seventy cases filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas had been dismissed as frivolous. See Doc. No. 19
(sampling cases); Webb v. Caldwell, Case No. 1:15-CV-00059-DAK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
103629, at *7 (D. Utah Aug. 5, 2016) (“Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate
activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions in appropriate
circumstances.”). The clerk’s office was directed to refrain from filing Addison’s papers
unless prior approval was given. Doc. No. 19.
Addison has continued to send pleadings regarding a variety of issues to the clerk’s
office. He has submitted (1) complaints alleging a host of grievances, see, e.g., Ex. A (listing
multiple plaintiffs and claiming that he appeared before judges with a conflict of interest;
judges set high bonds; courts are keeping defendants in jail without offering plea deals;
people are scaring prisoners to take offers; courts are racist; police are playing good cop/bad
cop); (2) letters referencing persons and cases not before the district court, see, e.g., Ex. B
(cover letters returning a letter referencing the same individual on two different occasions);
and (3) filings on behalf of a class of prisoners with only allegations referencing himself, see,
e.g., Ex. A (providing a signature list of other plaintiffs). Recently, he forwarded his
materials to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Eighth Circuit sent those materials
to the district clerk for filing. He has also submitted duplicate copies of complaints
previously submitted (and returned).
As a restricted filer who can no longer proceed in forma pauperis because he longexhausted his ability to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), each of Addison’s submissions
without an accompanying filing fee are reviewed by me and my staff before filing. When
Addison fails to state a claim or fails to demonstrate how he meets an exception to proceed
in forma pauperis, the clerk’s office is instructed not to file the complaint and to return the
filing to him. See, e.g., Ex. C (sample of cover letters).
Addison has requested instructions on how to obtain prior approval for filing. He is
hereby instructed that it is the clerk’s office, not Addison, that must obtain prior approval
before Addison’s papers can be filed. Each of Addison’s filings is reviewed to determine
whether approval for its filing should be given. So, there is nothing more that Addison can
do except pay the filing fee or otherwise escape the three-strike ban to proceed in forma
pauperis. Until then, Addison’s frivolous filings will be returned to him as has been done
for the past thirteen months.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of May 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?