HAMMOCK v. JOHNSON et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 16 miscellaneous motion and requiring prefiling screening by the magistrate judge of future motions. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 10/21/13. (AGH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
BILLY N. HAMMOCK,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

ARCHBISHOP JOHNSON, et al.

*

CASE NO. 4:13-cv-350 (CDL)
Defendants.

*
O R D E R

On

August

13,

2013,

Plaintiff’s

Complaint

was

dismissed

because Plaintiff had accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) and had failed to allege that he was in imminent
danger of serious physical injury.
No. 6.)
(Judgment

(Order 2, Aug. 13, 2013, ECF

Judgment was entered that same day for the Defendants.
1,

ECF

No.

7.)

motions (ECF Nos. 9, 10).

Thereafter,

Plaintiff

filed

two

The Magistrate Judge explained in a

text-only order that Plaintiff’s Complaint had been dismissed
and that his post-judgment motions were denied as moot.

(Text-

only Order, Aug. 18, 2013.)
Plaintiff filed three more motions in early September (ECF
Nos. 11-13.)

The Magistrate Judge again denied these motions

describing them as “rambling and almost incoherent” and “seeking
relief that cannot be granted by this Court.”
Sept. 11, 2013.)

(Text-only Order,

At that time, the Magistrate Judge explained

that any “similar subsequently filed motions shall be summarily
denied.”

(Id.)

This warning did not prevent Plaintiff from

continuing his pattern of frivolous filing.
2013,

two

more

motions

were

docketed.

On September 27,
These

motions

are

similarly rambling and unintelligible and were summarily denied
by the Magistrate Judge on September 30, 2013.
Plaintiff

has

now

filed

an

additional

frivolous

motion

seeking relief which cannot be granted by this Court.

Such

motion is denied for the same reasons previously explained to
Plaintiff.

Furthermore,

Plaintiff’s

pattern

of

frivolous

filings is an abuse of the judicial process which shall not be
allowed to continue.

In devising the appropriate remedy to

address the problem, the Court understands that it must give
substantial
Courts.

weight

to

a

prisoner’s

right

of

access

to

the

Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir.

1986) (per curiam); see also Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091,
1096 (11th Cir. 2008).
unconditional.”

But that right “is neither absolute nor

Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d

512, 517 (11th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).

Although Courts may not construct blanket orders that

completely shut the courthouse doors to the overly litigious,
they may erect reasonable barriers that protect their Article
III duties.

Miller, 541 F.3d at 1096-97.

One such reasonable

barrier approved in this Circuit under certain circumstances is

2

prefiling screening by a judge.

Cofield, 936 F.2d at 518.

Court

appropriate

finds

that

this

is

an

restriction

The
here.

Accordingly, prior to filing any future motions in this case,
Plaintiff shall submit the proposed motion to Magistrate Judge
Stephen Hyles who shall review it and decide whether it presents
a legitimate claim for relief.

If it does not, Judge Hyles may

order that it not be accepted for filing.

Any future motion

filed without such permission shall not be accepted for filing
and will not be ruled upon.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of October, 2013.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3