Davis v. State of Texas et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 7/20/15. (klc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

CHELSEA L. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

STATE OF TEXAS, et aI.,
Defendants.

CHELSEA L. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et aI.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. No.15-377-SLR
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
) Civ. No.15-384-SLR
)
)
)
)

Chelsea L. Davis, Dallas, Texas. Pro se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dated: July Ji> , 2015
Wilmington, Delaware

R~O~Udge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Chelsea L. Davis ("plaintiff') proceeds pro se and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Her filings indicate that she resides in Delaware,
but she provides an address in Dallas, Texas as her address of record. Plaintiff is a
licensed attorney in the State of Texas. 1

II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has engaged in filing numerous lawsuits that contain frivolous legal
arguments and that are vexatious and abusive of the judicial process. Plaintiff filed suit
against McKool Smith in the 298th Judicial District Court for Dallas County, Texas,
raising claims arising from her employment with McKool Smith, and the claims were
dismissed with prejudice on December 27,2013. (See Civ. No. 15-341-SLR, D.1. 3, ex.
1, Davis v. McKool Smith, P.C., Cause No. DC-13-14215). The dismissal included the

imposition of sanctions against plaintiff. The court stated that plaintiff's "abuse of the
judicial system through the filing of groundless pleadings and motions for an improper
purpose, and her bad faith and harassing actions and misconduct detailed by the
evidence, threaten the integrity of the judicial system, and demonstrate her flagrant bad
faith and callous disregard for court orders." (ld.) Prior to dismissal of the case in the
298th Judicial District, plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant by the 429th Judicial
District Court for Collin County, Texas. {See id. at D.1. 3, ex. 10, Davis v. Limo/and USA

On May 14,2015, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, an adjudicatory body appointed
by the Supreme Court of Texas to hear certain attorney discipline cases, signed a
judgment of indefinite disability suspension against plaintiff. See http://www.txboda.
org/cases/re-chelsea-I-davis (May 14. 2015).
1

Corp., Cause No. 429-03552-2014). Therein, plaintiff was prohibited from filing, pro se,

a new litigation in any court in Texas without permission of the appropriate local
administrative judge in accordance with § 11.102 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code. (Id.).
Plaintiff then attempted to litigate in the federal district courts of the Northern
District of Texas by filing at least nine law suits alleging the same set of claims and facts
as those previously dismissed by the state court. 2 On February 19, 2014, an order was
entered in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division ("Texas N.D. Court"), recounting in detail plaintiff's history of vexatious and
abusive litigation. See Davis v. McKool Smith, Civ. No. 14-3975-N-BK at D.1. 66. The
Texas N.D. Court enjoined plaintiff from filing or removing to its court: (1) any case
based in part or in whole in part on events before the date of its order against anyone
or more of the following parties: R. Brian Teal; Samuel Baxter; GECESC Associates;
GECESP Associates; BOC; Amy Abboud Ware; Leslie Ware; Stephen Jones; William
C. Carmody; James S. Chanos; McKool Smith; Clint D. Carlson; J. Kyle Bass; Chad
Bushaw; William A. Ackman; Harlan R. Crow; Leon G. Cooperman; Jon Stevens; Carlos
R. Cortez; Panoptis IP LLC; the Ware Firm LLC; McKool Smith Henningnan PC;
Southern Methodist University; Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law;

2 See e.g., Davis v. McKool Smith, Civ. No. 13-4926-N (N.D. Tex., removed Dec. 18,
2013; Davis v. Ackman, Civ. No. 13-4973-N (N.D. Tex., filed Dec. 20, 2013); Davis v.
McKool Smith, Civ. No. 14-056-N (N.D. Tex., filed Jan. 8, 2014); Davis v. McKool Smith,
Civ. No. 14-3962-N (N.D. Tex., filed Nov. 7, 2014); Davis v. Ware, Civ. No. 14-XC-3963­
K (N.D. Tex., filed Nov. 8, 2014); Davis v. McKool Smith, Civ. No. 14-3975-N (N.D. Tex.,
filed Nov. 10,2014); Davis v. McKool Smith, Civ. No. 14-4190-N (N.D. Tex., filed Nov.
24,2014).

2

John Attanasio; unless represented by a licensed attorney other than herself, or with
leave of court; and (2) any action arising from her employment at McKool Smith,
including but not limited to claims for sex discrimination; disability discrimination; racial
discrimination; medical leave; wages and overtime; wage discrimination; conspiracy;
false imprisonment; quantum meruit and unjust enrichment; assault and battery;
wrongful termination; breach of contract; intentional infliction of emotional distress; fraud
and promissory estoppel; negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; gross negligence;
personal injury under 18 U.S.C. § 2255; conspiracy to violate constitutional rights;
sexual assault; aggravated sexual assault; federal assault and sexual abuse; violation
of 18 U.S.C § 247; and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1592, unless represented by a licensed
attorney other than herself, or with leave of court. The order also revoked plaintiff's
electronic filing privileges for all of her accounts due to abuse of her electronic filing
privileges. Plaintiff was warned that further abuse of the judicial system would result in
progressively harsh sanctions including, but not limited to, a bar on all filings in the
Texas N.D. Court without first obtaining leave of court and monetary sanctions.
Similarly, on April 23, 2015, an order was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division ("Texas E.D. Court"), that also
recounted in detail plaintiffs history of vexatious and abusive litigation. See Davis v.
Supreme Court of Texas, Civ. No. 15-082-ALM-CMC at 0.1. 15 (E.D. Tex.). The Texas

E.D. Court found plaintiffs continued attempts to litigate the same claims vexatious and
designed solely to harass and embarrass defendants. The Texas E.D. Court enjoined
plaintiff from filing in or removing to its court, without leave of court: (1) any case based
in whole or in part on events before the date of its order and against anyone or more of

3

the following parties: R. Brian Teal; Samuel Baxter; GECESC Associates; GECESP
Associates; BOC; Amy Abboud Ware; Leslie Ware; Stephen Jones; William C.
Carmody; James S. Chanos; McKool Smith PC; Clint D. Carlson; J. Kyle Bass; Chad
Bushaw; William A. Ackman; Harlan R. Crow; Leon G. Cooperman; Jon Stevens; Carlos
R. Cortez; Panoptis IP LLC; the Ware Firm LLC; McKool Smith Henningnan PC;
Southern Methodist University; Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law;
Supreme Court of Texas; or John Attanasio; unless represented by a licensed attorney
other than herself; and (2) any action arising from her employment at McKool Smith,
including but limited to claims for sex discrimination; disability discrimination; racial
discrimination; medical leave; wages and overtime; wage discrimination; conspiracy;
false imprisonment; quantum meruit and unjust enrichment; assault and battery;
wrongful termination; breach of contract; intentional infliction of emotional distress; fraud
and promissory estoppel; negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; gross negligence;
personal injury under 18 U.S.C. § 2255; conspiracy to violate constitutional rights;
sexual assault; aggravated sexual assault; federal assault and sexual abuse; violation
of 18 U,S,C § 247; and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1592; unless represented by a licensed
attorney other than herself. Plaintiff was again warned that further abuse of the judicial
system would result in progressively harsh sanctions including, but not limited to, a bar
on all filings in the Texas E.D. Court without first obtaining leave of court and monetary
sanctions.
Plaintiff recently began filing lawsuits in this court. See Civ. No. 15-341-SLR
(transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas); Civ.
No. 15-377-SLR (dismissed as malicious and based upon defendants' immunity from

4

suit); Civ. No. 15-384-SLR (dismissed as malicious and based upon defendants'
immunity from suit). The court reviewed the orders entered in the numerous cases filed
by plaintiff in the Texas courts, and determined that the complaints in Civ. Nos. 15-341­
SLR, 15-377-SLR, and 15-384-SLR contain similar allegations and were raised against
many of the same defendants as in prior actions initiated by plaintiff. On May 26, 2015,
the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why she should not be enjoined from filing,
without prior authorization of the court, any notice of removal, complaint, lawsuit, motion
for injunctive relief, or petition for writ of mandamus, filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware in an effort to avoid the orders enjoining her from filing
lawsuits in Texas courts OR regarding or relating to any and all claims arising from
plaintiff's employment at McKool Smith, including, but not limited to, actions against Eric
Aguilar, Asarco LLC, Angeline Bain, Baker Botts LLP, Samuel F. Baxter, Carlson
Capital LP, Robin Case, Chief Disciplinary Counsel Linda Acevedo, Collin County, Colt
Ventures, Harlan R. Crow, Crow Holdings Capital Partners LLC, Jaye Crowder, Dallas
County, Dallas Cowboys Football Club Ltd., Susan Farris, Lawrence J. Friedman,
Hayman Capital Management LP, Kynikos Associates LP, Brian S. Lidji, McKool Smith
P.C., Edgar Nace, Omega Advisors Inc., PanOptis LLC, Pershing Square Capital
Management LP, C. Roderick Phelan, SMU Dedman School of Law, Sayles Werbner
P.C., Ben Selman, State Bar of Texas, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas,
Emily Tobolowsky, Town of Addison, Town of Highland Park, Travis County, Leslie D.
Ware, Mark Werbner, Jill Willis, State of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas, Board of
Disciplinary Appeals, and Commission for Lawyer Discipline. (See Civ. No. 15-377­
SLR, 0.1. 14,15; Civ. No. 15-384-SLR, 0.1. 6, 7)

5

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court has the power to enjoin vexatious litigants from filing meritless
pleadings that duplicate ones already adjudicated. 28 U.S.C. § 1651; see Matter of
Packer Ave. Assoc., 884 F.2d 745, 747 (3d Cir. 1989); Day v. White, 549 F. App'x 66
(3d Cir. 2014) (unpublished); Yadav v. Surtees, 87 F. App'x 271 (3d Cir. 2004)
(unpublished). A pre-filing injunction is an exception to the general rule of free access
to the courts, and its use against a pro se plaintiff is approached with caution. See Day,
549 F. App'x at 67 (citing In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir.1982)). A district court
may enjoin a pro se litigant from future filings so long as the injunction complies with
three requirements: (1) the litigant must be continually abusing the judicial process;
(2) the litigant must be given notice of the potential injunction and an opportunity to
oppose the court's order; and (3) the injunction must be narrowly tailored to fit the
specific circumstances of the case. Brow

V.

Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir.1993).

IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has a history of continual abuse of the judicial process. The court, in
seeking to enjoin plaintiff as a vexatious litigant from future litigation, provided her
sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard in the form of a show cause order
entered May 26,2015. (See Civ. No. 15-377-SLR, 0.1. 15; Civ. No. 15-384-SLR, 0.1.
7); See Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993). Plaintiff did not file a
response to the show cause order. Instead, she filed an amended complaint with
exhibits in Civ. No. 15-384-SLR 3 (0.1. 8, 9) The heading of the amended complaint is

3

Nothing has been filed in Civ. No. 15-377-SLR

6

as follows: "In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; Eastern
District of Virginia; Court of Federal Claims; and/or Other Court ("this Court")" (D.1. 8) It
appears from the heading that plaintiff is filing, or has filed, the amended complaint in
other courts. In addition, the amended complaint contains numerous exhibits, some of
which contain inappropriate sexual content including a photograph. (D.1. 9) The
inappropriate exhibits have been placed under seal pursuant to privacy policies found in
the administrative procedures governing filing and service by electronic means. Plaintiff
will be placed on notice that future inappropriate documents submitted to this court will
not be docketed. Finally, concurrent with the amended complaint, plaintiff filed a
"withdrawal/cancellation of motion to proceed in forma pauperis."4 (D.1.10)
It is apparent by plaintiff's failure to respond to the show cause order, and from
the content of her most recent filings, that the frivolous and vexatious nature of her prior
complaints and filings are of no concern to her, a circumstance that indicates the
likelihood that such abuse of the complaint procedure will continue unless protective
procedures are instituted. Indeed, plaintiff continues, unabated, to reiterate her
misguided theories, despite court rulings to the contrary. Plaintiff presented nothing to
the court to sway it from finding that plaintiff should not be enjoined from filing in this
court.
Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to show cause why she should
not be enjoined from filing, without prior authorization of this court, any notice of

The filing states, "I, Chelsea L. Davis, withdraw/cancel my motion to proceed in forma
pauperis dated May 13, 2015, although I do not admit that such was ever actually filed
with 'Complaint' at Document 1." (D.1. 10)
4

7

removal, complaint, lawsuit, motion for injunctive relief, or petition for writ of mandamus,
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in an effort to avoid
the orders enjoining her from filing lawsuits in Texas courts OR regarding or relating to
any and all claims arising from plaintiff's employment at McKool Smith, including, but
not limited to, actions against Eric Aguilar, Asarco LLC, Angeline Bain, Baker Botts LLP,
Samuel F. Baxter, Carlson Capital LP, Robin Case, Chief Disciplinary Counsel Linda
Acevedo, Collin County, Colt Ventures, Harlan R. Crow, Crow Holdings Capital Partners
LLC, Jaye Crowder, Dallas County, Dallas Cowboys Football Club Ltd., Susan Farris,
Lawrence J. Friedman, Hayman Capital Management LP, Kynikos Associates LP, Brian
S. Lidji, McKool Smith P.C., Edgar Nace, Omega Advisors Inc., PanOptis LLC, Pershing
Square Capital Management LP, C. Roderick Phelan, SMU Dedman School of Law,
Sayles Werbner P.C., Ben Selman, State Bar of Texas, Texas Health Presbyterian
Hospital Dallas, Emily Tobolowsky, Town of Addison, Town of Highland Park, Travis
County, Leslie D. Ware, Mark Werbner, Jill Willis, State of Texas, Supreme Court of
Texas, Board of Disciplinary Appeals, and Commission for Lawyer Discipline.
In addition, the court will strike, and will not consider, the amended complaint.
(0.1. 8) Nor may plaintiff withdraw her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (0.1. 10)
Her motion to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted and she has presented no
reason to withdraw the motion.
Finally, the court will unseal Civ. Nos. 15-377-SLR and 15-384-SLR, but will
continue to seal certain docket items due to inappropriate content.

8

V. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will: (1) enter an order to enjoin plaintiff as a
vexatious litigant from future litigation; (2) strike the amended complaint (D.1. 8); and (3)
deny the request to withdraw the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (D.1.
10). Plaintiff will be placed on notice that the court will not docket, nor entertain, filings
that contain inappropriate sexual content. Finally, the court will unseal Civ. Nos. 15­
377-SLR and 15-384-SLR, but will continue to seal certain docket items due to
inappropriate content.
A separate order shall issue.

9