Moon v. Samuels, et al

Filing 80

ORDER DENYING 77 Motion to Rescind Restricted Filer Status. Plaintiff's FILING RESTRICTION is EXTENDED. Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further litigation, including any papers in a civil action, in this District until such time as his outstanding filing fees of $2,902.00 are paid in full. The restriction does not extend to a notice of appeal filed in this case, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or any pleadings filed as a defendant in a criminal action. Unless some other action is taken by the Court, any petition for writ of habeas corpus Plaintiff files in this District should be considered denied and dismissed thirty (30) days after it is filed. Plaintiff may seek modification or rescission of this Order, by filin g a motion in this Court no earlier than two years from the date of entry of this new Order (no sooner than July 21, 2022). The Clerk is again DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff's address of record and return any documents submitted in violation of this Order to Plaintiff UNFILED. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/21/2020. (jsy)

Case 3:15-cv-00876-JPG Document 80 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #203

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARNELL WESLEY MOON,
#34077-044,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
D. SCOTT DODRILL, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00876-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is now before the Court for consideration of a Motion to Rescind Restricted
Filer Status filed by Plaintiff Darnell Moon on June 23, 2020. (Doc. 77). The filing restriction at
issue was imposed by Chief Judge Michael Reagan on May 13, 2016. (Doc. 68). Plaintiff’s
underlying suit was dismissed with prejudice for fraudulent omission of his litigation history in
his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to disclose more
than sixty (60) cases he filed during his incarceration between 2008 and 2014 and more than
three (3) “strikes” he received under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1 He also failed to disclose the
seventeen (17) or more cases he filed during supervised release, including more than a halfdozen in this District. The Court found that Plaintiff’s omissions were material, intentional, and

1

See Moon v. Samuels, No. 15-cv-861-JPG-SCW (S.D. Ill.) (Doc. 103, pp. 1-2) (citing Green v. Warden,
U.S. Penitentiary, 699 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1983) (federal court may take judicial notice of other court
proceedings related to the matter at bar)); Moon v. Walton, No. 15-cv-889-JPG-SCW (S.D. Ill.) (Doc. 87,
p. 1); Moon v. Rivas, No. 15-cv-890-JPG-DGW (S.D. Ill.) (Doc. 19; Doc. 29, p. 3); Moon v. Rivas, No.
15-cv-891-SMY-PMF (S.D. Ill.) (Doc. 69); Moon v. Garcia, No. 15-cv-921-SMY-RJD (S.D. Ill.)
(Doc. 43).

1

Case 3:15-cv-00876-JPG Document 80 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #204

fraudulent and entered an Order prohibiting him from “filing any further litigation in this
Court until he pays all outstanding fees.”2 (Doc. 68, p. 5) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff now asks the Court to lift the filing restriction. Although Plaintiff was allowed
to bring this matter before the Court for consideration, this Court declines to lift the restriction.
Plaintiff still owes this Court more than $2,900.00 in unpaid fees he accumulated before the
filing restriction was imposed.3 He acknowledges these unpaid fees, but states that he has no
money. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has exercised virtually no self-restraint from
abusive litigation while the filing restriction has been in effect. Although the Court agrees that
the restriction should not be perpetual, the Court finds that the restriction must remain in effect to
curb Plaintiff’s abusive litigation tactics in this District. The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s
(PLRA) three-strikes bar to litigation will not sufficiently deter Plaintiff from continuing his
filing spree that never ended. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks—under any authority. See, e.g., FED. R. CIV.
P. 60; Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (1995); Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 437
(7th Cir. 1997). He has not satisfied his obligation to pay $2,902.00 in fees to this Court, and he
remains obligated to do so. Moreover, the prior sanctions did not curb his abusive litigation
conduct. Plaintiff simply continued filing suits for civil damages in other federal district courts
during the past four years. (Doc. 79, p. 2) (citing Case Nos. 16-cv-208 (E.D. Mo.); 16-cv-1866
2

At the time, Moon was also subject to a filing restriction in a habeas action. See Moon v. Roal, No. 12cv-982-DRH (Doc. 12) (“[A]ny future civil action petitioner may file in this Court (including any action
seeking habeas relief), shall not be considered by the Court until full payment of the filing fee for this
case has been made).
3
Moon owes the following amounts: Moon v. Roal, No. 12-cv-983-MJR-SCW ($350.00); Moon v. United
States, No. 12-cv-1090-JPG ($332.02); Moon v. Samuels, No. 15-cv-861-JPG-SCW ($400.00); Moon v.
Dodrill, No. 15-cv-876-JPG ($350.00); Moon v. Walton, No. 15-cv-889-JPG-SCW ($400.00); Moon v.
Rivas, No. 15-cv-890-JPG-DGW ($350.00); Moon v. Rivas, No. 15-cv-891-SMY-PMF ($350.00); Moon
v. Garcia, No. 15-cv-921-SMY-RJD ($350.00); Moon v. Roal, No. 12-cv-636-CJP ($5.00); Moon v. Roal,
No. 12-cv-982-DRH ($5.00); Moon v. Roal, No. 12-cv-1070-DRH ($5.00); Moon v. Roal, No. 13-cv-68DRH ($5.00).

2

Case 3:15-cv-00876-JPG Document 80 Filed 07/21/20 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #205

(M.D. Tenn.); 17-cv-125 (E.D. Mo.); 17-cv-132 (E.D. Mo.); 18-cv-117 (E.D. Mo.); 2019-cv-17
(E.D. Mo.); and 2019-cv-1355 (D. Ore.)). During the past month, this Court received six more
cases Plaintiff filed in Williamson County, Illinois, and the defendants removed to this District:
Case Nos. 2020-L-3, 2020-L-47, 2020-L-60, 2020-L-63, 2020-L-67, and 2020-L-68. (Doc. 79,
pp. 2-3). The Court will not tolerate Plaintiff’s persistent abuse of the judicial process.
Disposition
The Motion to Rescind Restricted Filer Status (Doc. 77) is DENIED. Plaintiff is a
litigious inmate, who has amassed significant unpaid filing fees in this District and pursued
litigation in state and federal courts throughout the United States, without deterrence, while this
filing restriction has been in effect. In light of the above, Plaintiff’s FILING RESTRICTION
REMAINS IN EFFECT and is EXTENDED. Accordingly, Plaintiff is prohibited from filing
any further litigation, including any papers in a civil action, in this District until such time as his
outstanding filing fees of $2,902.00 are paid in full. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d
185 (1995); Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 437 (7th Cir. 1997). The filing restriction does not
extend to a notice of appeal filed in this case, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or any
pleadings filed as a defendant in a criminal action. Id. Unless some other action is taken by the
Court, any petition for writ of habeas corpus Plaintiff files in this District should be considered
denied and dismissed thirty (30) days after it is filed. Plaintiff may seek modification or
rescission of this Order, by filing a motion in this Court no earlier than two years from the date
of entry of this new Order (no sooner than July 21, 2022).
The Clerk is again DIRECTED to return any documents submitted in violation of this
Order and the Order Imposing Filing Restriction (Doc. 68, p. 5) to Plaintiff UNFILED. The

3

Case 3:15-cv-00876-JPG Document 80 Filed 07/21/20 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #206

Clerk is also DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff’s address of record in this
case.
Finally, Plaintiff is FURTHER ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to
keep the Clerk and each opposing party informed of any change in his address, and that the Court
will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later
than seven (7) days after a change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this Order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 21, 2020
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge

4