Adams v. County Commissioner for Calhoun County et al
Filing
148
ORDER denying 146 Motion for Writ of Mandamus; denying 147 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is NOTICED that continued filing of voluminous, meritless, or repetitive pleadings in this Court may result in the requirement that he seek prefiling approval before new filings may be docketed.Ordered by U.S. District Judge W. Louis Sands on 11/26/13 (wks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
ALLEN ALPHONZO ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR
CALHOUN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No.: 1:11-CV-155 (WLS)
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court are pleadings styled as Motion for Objective
[sic] an [sic] Return Answer Too [sic] Order Made on 11-04-2013 in Doc. 144 (Doc. 145),
Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 146), and Affidavit in Support of Request to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 147). The Court construes Motion for Objective [sic]
an [sic] Return Answer Too [sic] Order Made on 11-04-2013 in Doc. 144 (Doc. 145) as a
Motion for Reconsideration.
I.
Motion for Reconsideration
On March 6, 2013, the Court adopted a Recommendation from United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff dismissing the above-captioned matter against
all defendants. (Docs. 115 & 140.) Plaintiff subsequently filed Notice for Interlocutory
Appeal, which the Court construed as a Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal.
(Docs. 142 & 144.) On November 4, 2013, the Court denied that Motion. (Doc. 144.) An
interlocutory appeal was improper because judgment had been entered against all
defendants and would therefore not be interlocutory.
(See Doc. 141.)
Based on
Defendant’s filings now under review (Docs. 145-147), the Court finds that Notice for
1
Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 142) may have been intended to be a Request to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis on Appeal.
“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in
writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Accordingly, the Court
cannot grant such a request upon finding that the appeal sought to be taken in forma
pauperis is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). While the good faith test under § 1915 does not require a
preliminary showing of any particular degree of merit, the examining court at least must
be able to determine from the in forma pauperis application whether the appeal
involves legal points arguable on their merits. DeSantis v. United Technologies Corp.,
15 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1289 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (citations omitted). That is, legal theories
raised in the appeal must be “capable of being convincingly argued.” Ghee v. Retailers
Nat. Bank, 271 F. App’x 858, 859-60 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sun v. Forrester, 939
F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991)). Otherwise, if they are not, they are “indisputably
meritless,” frivolous, and thus, brought without good faith. Id. (quoting Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993)).
Upon review of the pleadings filed after judgment was entered in the abovecaptioned matter (Docs. 142, 143, 145-47), the Court finds that the intended appeal is
not taken in good faith because the Court is unable to determine “whether the appeal
involves legal points arguable on their merits.” See DeSantis, 15 F. Supp. 2d at 1289.
Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff requests to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal, that request is DENIED. Also, to the extent Plaintiff requests the Court to
reconsider its November 4, 2013 Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to certify an
2
interlocutory appeal, that request is DENIED. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Objective
[sic] an [sic] Return Answer Too [sic] Order Made on 11-04-2013 in Doc. 144 (Doc. 145)
is DENIED.
II.
Motion for Writ of Mandamus
“A writ of mandamus ‘is only appropriate when: (1) the plaintiff has a clear right
to the relief requested; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) no other
adequate remedy is available.’ ” United States v. Collins, 524 F. App’x 573, 574 (11th Cir.
2013) (citing Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003)). Plaintiff claims
that he is entitled to mandamus because the clerk “fail[ed] to docket an[d] file
[Plaintiff’s] notice for interlocutory appeal filed on March 25, 2013.” (Doc. 146 at 1.)
However, Plaintiff’s Notice for Interlocutory Appeal was filed on March 18, 2013. (Doc.
142.) To the extent Plaintiff’s claims that the Court improperly denied his requests to
proceed in forma pauperis, or his request for the Court to certify an interlocutory
appeal, Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 146) is DENIED for the reasons
stated above and in its prior referenced orders.
III.
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
To the extent Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc.
147) should be construed as a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal, that
Motion (Doc. 147) is DENIED for the reasons stated above. To the extent Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 147) seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis in any other context or for any other purpose, such a request is DENIED as
Plaintiff has provided no legally cognizable reason or justification for the same.
3
IV.
Prefiling Approval
Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case was dismissed without prejudice because he
provided a false response to a complaint form question. (Doc. 115 at 8.) “If Plaintiff
wishes to proceed with the claims raised in this action, he must submit a new complaint,
along with” the filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Wallace v. Strength, No.
CV 108-009, 2008 WL 2097146, *2 n.2 (S.D. Ga. May 16, 2008). Because Plaintiff has
previously filed a litany of meritless motions, the Court is concerned that Plaintiff will
continue to burden this Court’s docket with voluminous filings. Accordingly, the Court
finds it appropriate to notify Plaintiff that such behavior will result in the requirement
that Plaintiff first seek permission from the Court before filing additional pleadings.
Although the Court is sensitive to the importance of providing defendants access
to a forum to vindicate their constitutional rights, it is also aware of its “responsibility to
prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the judicial machinery
needed by others.” Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1074 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc).
The right of access to the courts “is neither unconditional nor absolute.” Smith v.
United States, 386 F. App’x 853, 857 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Procup, 792 F.2d at
1077–78). “Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional
obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs the ability to carry
out Article III judicial functions.” Procup, 792 F.2d at 1073–74. For that reason, “[a]
litigant ‘can be severely restricted as to what he may file and how he must behave in his
applications for judicial relief.’” United States v. Powerstein, 185 F. App’x 811, 813 (11th
Cir. 2006) (quoting Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074).
The Eleventh Circuit has afforded district courts broad discretion in shaping
restrictions on a litigant’s right to file pleadings. For example, in United States v.
4
Powerstein, the Eleventh Circuit upheld a district court’s order barring a defendant
“from filing any other pleading or documents of any kind in this case, subject to the
pains and penalties of contempt of court, unless this Court is ordered by the Eleventh
Circuit . . . or the Supreme Court . . . to accept filing.” 185 F. App’x at 813. In that case,
the appellant, a convicted felon who had been released from prison, had filed sixty-one
documents challenging his conviction. Id. at 812 & n.1. The Eleventh Circuit held that
the injunction was not overbroad in part because it permitted him to file pleadings if
permitted by the Eleventh Circuit. Id. at 813. On several occasions, the Eleventh Circuit
has also upheld restrictions that require prefiling approval by the district judge before
new filings may be docketed. Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 518 (11th
Cir. 1991); Copeland v. Green, 949 F.2d 390, 391 (11th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff is NOTICED that the continued filing of voluminous, meritless, or
repetitive pleadings in this Court may result in the requirement that he seek prefiling
approval before new filings may be docketed.
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of November. 2013.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
_
W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
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?