BOYD v. TIPTON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 343

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND ISSUING SANCTIONS AND LIMITED FILING BAN - Mr. Boyd's motions to strike, dkts. 341 and 342 , are DENIED. Mr. Boyd is prohibited from filing papers in this closed action until and unless it is remanded by the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the clerk is DIRECTED to return unfiled any document labeled with this case's title, number, or caption. Any motions pending at the time this order is issued are summarily DENIED. (See Order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/17/2022. (AKH)

Case 1:20-cv-01256-TWP-TAB Document 343 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3186

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DEREK L. BOYD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DAVIN NICHOLS, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01256-TWP-TAB

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND ISSUING
SANCTIONS AND LIMITED FILING BAN
This matter is before the Court on Derek Boyd's motions to strike his filing of August 3,
2022. (Dkts. 341, 342). In this order, the Court addresses Mr. Boyd's Motions as well as his pattern
of excessive filings.
I. Motions to Strike
On June 21, 2022 the Court entered an order the granting the Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment, Dkts. [248], [252], and [260], and denying Mr. Boyd's Motion for Summary
Judgment, Dkt. [196], and his Motions for Sanctions, Dkts. [183] and [285]. (Dkt. 293) That same
day, final judgment (Dkt. 294) in which the Court dismissed this case with prejudice. Mr. Boyd
timely filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. 296) and his appeal is pending in the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.
August 3, 2022, Derek Boyd filed a document in this case titled: "Notice to Court
Supplemental 6 Month Trust Print-Out Notarized." Dkt. 338. The filing concludes: "Please
GRANT the attached motion and supplement the Trust Accounting." Id. Given this statement,

1

Case 1:20-cv-01256-TWP-TAB Document 343 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3187

Clerk's Office staff properly docketed Mr. Boyd's filing as a motion for leave to proceed on appeal
without prepaying the appellate fees. The Court denied Mr. Boyd's motion on August 9. Dkt. 340.
On August 9, Mr. Boyd filed a motion to strike the August 3 filing. Dkt. 341. In his motion,
Mr. Boyd states that the August 3 filing regarding the appellate fees "was a Notice not requiring
Court Action." Id. A few days later, on August 11, Mr. Boyd filed a second motion to strike the
August 3 filing. Dkt. 342. In this motion, Mr. Boyd refers to the Court staff's docketing of his
submission as a motion as "fraudul[e]nt" and "sabotage." Dkt. 342.
Mr. Boyd's motions to strike, dkts. [341] and [342], are denied. The Court has already
denied the request in the August 3 filing, and its continued presence on the docket has no
consequence.
II. Excessive and Abusive Filings
Mr. Boyd has filed 24 civil cases in this Court since April 2020. They include four habeas
corpus petitions and twenty prisoner civil rights cases. Eight are currently pending. In June 2022,
Mr. Boyd "struck out" by bringing a third civil case dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing
to state a claim. See Boyd v. Carter, et al., no. 1:22-cv-00694-JPH-MPB, dkt. 18 (S.D. Ind. June
24, 2022) 1.
In this case, Mr. Boyd has made nearly 40 post-judgment filings in less than two months.
Most have been unnecessary or cumulative. See, e.g., dkts. 316, 317 (copies of e-filing consent

Judge Hanlon determined "[t]he dismissal of this action pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1) may be considered a "strike" for
purposes of § 1915(g). The Court is aware of at least two other dismissals that may also be counted as strikes against
Mr. Boyd. See Boyd v. Johnson, no. 1:21-03081-JRS-TAB, dkt. 25 (S.D. Ind. Case 1:22-cv-00694-JPH-MPB
Document 18 Filed 06/24/22 (dismissing action for failure to state a claim); Boyd v. Dugger, no. 1:21-3083, dkt. 16
(S.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2022) (dismissing action as frivolous). A prisoner who has accrued three strikes may proceed in
forma pauperis only if he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury; otherwise, he must prepay the full filing
fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Mr. Boyd seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in future cases and does not "disclose
to the court the fact that" he has had three cases dismissed that could be counted as strikes, he will "risk dismissal of
[his] case as a sanction for misconduct." Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 519 (7th Cir. 2017)." See Boyd v. Carter, et al.,
no. 1:22-cv-00694-JPH-MPB, dkt. 18 (S.D. Ind. June 24, 2022)
1

2

Case 1:20-cv-01256-TWP-TAB Document 343 Filed 08/17/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3188

form); dkt. 318 (notice of in forma pauperis motions); dkt. 328 (97 pages of documents sent to
Court of Appeals); dkt. 339 (notice of intent to present evidence in Court of Appeals). In addition
to consuming the Court's resources and diverting them from other cases—including Mr. Boyd's
many pending actions—these filings cause confusion, as illustrated by the filings discussed in
Part I.
In one of his other cases, this Court warned Mr. Boyd to stop "filing multiple motions on
the same issue at the same time, filing a second motion on an issue before the first is resolved, and
filing repeated motions on issues the Court has already decided." Boyd v. Reaves, et al., no. 1:20cv-01844-TWP-TAB, dkt. 162 at *4 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2022). The Court made clear that he must
"be mindful of this warning in every case he has pending in this Court." Dkt. 270 at 2. The Court
warned Mr. Boyd that, if he continued to abuse the docket with cumulative, repetitive filings, he
would be subject to sanctions, including filing restrictions. Id.
"A district court has inherent power to sanction a party who 'has willfully abused the
judicial process or otherwise conducted litigation in bad faith.'" Secrease v. W. & S. Life Ins., 800
F.3d 397, 401 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Salmeron v. Enterprise Recovery Systems, 579 F.3d 787,
793 (7th Cir. 2009)). Such sanctions can include the imposition of a filing bar to restrict a plaintiff's
ability to file new lawsuits. See Support Sys. Int'l v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995) (filing
bar imposed on pro se party who continued to file false evidence and did not respond to monetary
sanctions). A filing bar, however, must be tailored to the misconduct. Henry v. United States, 360
F. App’x 654, 656 (7th Cir. 2010).
Mr. Boyd has made a filing restriction appropriate by continuing to file unnecessary papers
and repetitive motions in violation of specific orders by the Court. Regrettably, as detailed below,

3

Case 1:20-cv-01256-TWP-TAB Document 343 Filed 08/17/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3189

Mr. Boyd is prohibited from filing papers in this closed action ˗˗Case No. 1:20-cv-01256-TWPTAB˗˗until and unless it is remanded by the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Boyd's restriction is currently limited to this closed case which is presently on appeal.
Nothing in this order prohibits him from filing papers with the Seventh Circuit. The Court
reiterates, however, that the admonition against repetitive and abusive filings applies to every case
and every paper Mr. Boyd files in this Court. If he continues to violate the Court's orders, he may
be subject to broader restrictions in other cases, including limitations on his abilities to file new
cases or file papers in existing cases.
The court does not intend to interfere with Mr. Boyd' access to justice, and he remains
welcome to litigate his cases zealously. The Court does not expect Mr. Boyd to do so with the skill
or grace of an attorney; he is expected, however, to submit filings that respect the law, his fellow
litigants, the Court's staff, and the rules and orders of this Court.
III. Conclusion
Mr. Boyd's motions to strike, dkts. [341] and [342], are denied.
Mr. Boyd is prohibited from filing papers in this closed action until and unless it is
remanded by the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the clerk is directed to return unfiled any
document labeled with this case's title, number, or caption. Any motions pending at the time this
order is issued are summarily denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/17/2022

4

Case 1:20-cv-01256-TWP-TAB Document 343 Filed 08/17/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3190

Distribution:
DEREK L. BOYD
273507
PLAINFIELD - CF
PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Alexander Robert Carlisle
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
Curtis Matthew Graham
FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
[e-mail]
Stephen C. Keller
SCHILLER BARNES & MALONEY, PLLC
[e-mail]
Casey C. Stansbury
Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
[e-mail]

5