Moore v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Filing 31

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Recusal; denying 22 Motion to Compel; denying 23 Motion to Compel; denying 27 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 12/21/2015. (loh)

FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAVANNAH DIV.

20150EC21 AMIO:37

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ALVIN L. MOORE,

1017 'I

)
)

Plaintiff,
)

V.

)

Case No. CV415-144

)

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,)
)

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this employment discrimination case removed from state court,

pro se inmate Alvin Moore complains that Georgia-Pacific (GP) racially
discriminated against him in 2008 (doc. 1-1 at 25); created a hostile work
environment in violation of Title VII (id. at 26); retaliated against him
for "attempting to protect and vindicate" his Title VII rights (id. at 29);
denied him due compensation, possibly (his complaint is nothing if not
inscrutable) in the form of worker's compensation benefits (id. at 28);
and instituted a "fraudulent claim denial" in state court before removing
his complaint to this Court. Id. at 30. Since removal, Moore has moved
to remand (doe. 4); strike GP's notices, motions, statements, and

responses (doe. 12); and for declaratory judgment. Doe. 14. GP moves to
dismiss. Doe. 5.
Moore is no stranger to this Court. Beyond bank robbery charges
and several associated habeas corpus petitions,' he's ified at least seven
civil cases, all of which have been dismissed as frivolous or for failing to
obey court orders .2 Because of his multi-decade, nonsensical paper war,
this Court imposed a $100 frivolity bond before any case he presses in
the Southern District may proceed.

See Moore v. United States, No.

CV413-104, doe. 3 (S.D. Ga. July 12, 2013). GP asked that it do so again
here, despite this case originating in state court, to block Moore's
"blatant maneuvering." See doe. 5 at 3 n. 4.

1

See United States u. Moore, No. CR493-063 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 1993) (convicted after
jury trial); Moore u. United States, No. CV498-074 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 1998) (28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion). Moore also filed three 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions, evidently in an
effort to escape the second or successive bar applicable to § 2255 motions. See Moore
v. Hobbs, No. CV202-199 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 27, 2003); Moore v. Hobbs, No. CV203-053
(S.D. Ga. Apr. 30, 2003); Moore v. James, No.CV206-116 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2006).
2

See Moore v. United States, No. CV613-100 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2013) (dismissing for
failure to pay $100 frivolity bond); Moore v. United States, No. CV413-104 (S.D. Ga.
July 12, 2013) (dismissing case as frivolous and imposing $100 frivolity bond before
Moore can file additional cases); Moore u. United States, No. CV411-313 (Mar. 28,
2012) (dismissing complaint because it presented "a copious splatter of disconnected
thoughts, documents, and run-on sentences"); Moore v. United States, No. CV407-123
(S.D. Ga. May 22, 2008) (dismissed for failure to pay filing fee); Moore v. Georgia, No.
CV407-130 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 21, 2007) (dismissing complaint as meritless); Moore v.
Turner, No. CV200-006 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2000) (dismissed for failure to obey a court
order).

U

The Court agreed and ordered Moore to pay the bond before
allowing this case to proceed. Doc. 19 (citing In re Duroser, 2015 WL
4068243 at * 1 n. 2 (N.D. Ga. July 2, 2015) (bankruptcy debtor's appeal
dismissed as frivolous because she refused to pay filing fee after court
previously disallowed her IFP status as a sanction for filing multiple
frivolous cases and appeals); Crooker v. Global Tel Link, 2012 MIL 651644
at * 2 (D.R.I. Jan. 6, 2012) (to avoid the Prison Litigation Reform Act's
three-strikes rule and filing fees, prisoner filed complaints in state court
asserting federal claims against out-of-state defendants, thus assuring
removal; court required prisoner to pay full civil case filing fees, or
reimburse defendants for removal fees, in order "to prevent Plaintiff
from circumventing" the PLRA and court-imposed filing restrictions)).
Instead of timely paying the bond, Moore has filed another flurry of
frivolous motions. See does. 21 (motion for recusal of the undersigned);
22 (motion to compel discovery and for Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions
against GP); 23 (another motion to compel); 24 (motion to un-refer

3

motions from the undersigned); 27 (motion for Rule 11 sanctions against
GP). None have any merit.'
Because Moore still has not paid the required $100 frivolity bond,
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) objection (doe. 20) 1 should be OVERRULED
and this case should be DISMISSED. Should Moore file further
frivolous litigation, the Court will recommend more stringent filing
restrictions. See Hurt v. Zimmerman, No. CV415-260, doe. 4 (S.D. Ga.
° For one, discovery has not commenced, so Moore's discovery motions (does. 22 &
23) are premature and, therefore, DENIED. Second, his recusal motion sets forth no
reasons why the impartiality of the undersigned "might reasonably be questioned."
28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Instead, he (1) objects to granting GP an extension of time to
conduct a Rule 26(f) conference because it somehow "fetter[ed] Moore's meaningful
assess [sic] to court;" (2) complains that removal of this case causes him to travel
from Statesboro, Georgia to Savannah, Georgia; and (3) argues that the
undersigned's imposition of the frivolity bond "usurped" the district judge's
"inherent Article III power." Doc. 21 at 3-4. In addition to being legally unsound,
those arguments do not suggest partiality. What they show is that Moore continues
to pester unfortunate opposing parties and the Court with frivolous filings, the very
behavior the bond he refuses to pay was instituted to prevent. Hence, his motion to
recuse is DENIED.
Finally, his motion for sanctions (doe. 27) complains about a letter sent by defense
counsel graciously offering to confer with Moore about discovery even though the
Court had effectively stayed discovery pending decision on GP's motion to dismiss.
See doe. 27-1 at 1. There's nothing offensive about that, much less anything that
warrants sanctions. This motion therefore is DENIED.
His Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) objection runs 97 pages (way beyond the 26 page limit on
briefs imposed by Local Rule 7.1) and in it he insists that the undersigned has no
authority to rule on GP's motion to dismiss, among other things. Although Moore is
correct that a final ruling on a dispositive motion by the undersigned would overstep
the bounds imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 636, that hasn't happened here. Indeed, the
Court has never addressed GP's motion to dismiss other than to note its existence.
This dismissal recommendation is predicated entirely on Moore's failure to pay the
frivolity bond required of all Moore filings in this Court.
4

C

Oct. 7, 2015), adopted doe. 5. Finally, the Court DENIES Moore's
motion for sanctions (doe. 27), motions to compel (does. 22 & 23), and
motion to recuse (doe. 21).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this ,ftday of
December, 2015.

UISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

61