Sandres v. State Of Louisiana Division Of Administration et al

Filing 51

RULINGS: The motion by deft to dismiss (doc. 11) is DENIED, and pltfs Motion Not to Dismiss (doc. 12) is DISMISSED as moot. The motion for default (doc. 30) is DENIED, and IT IS ORDERED that defendants answer is due within 21 days of the issuance of this Ruling. The matter having recently been reassigned, pltfs motions to transfer or reassign the matter (18, 22, 23, 47) and plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended affidavit in support of the motion to transfer or reassign the matter (doc . 25) are DISMISSED as moot. Because the motion to dismiss and the motion not to dismiss have been addressed, the motion for a temporary restraining order (43) is DISMISSED as moot. Because the Court has ruled on all of plaintiffs other pending mo tions in this matter, plaintiffs motions to address the status of the pending motions (docs. 20, 21, 28, 29, 38, 40, 45, 46, 49) are DISMISSED as moot. The Order of the Magistrate Judge dated 1/12/2010 (doc. 105) is hereby AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 9/23/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NAOMI SANDRES
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 08-524-BAJ-CN
STATE OF LOUISIANA DIVISION
OF ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
OF RISK MANAGEMENT

RULINGS
The Court’s review of this matter upon its recent reassignment reveals
numerous pending motions and a pending appeal by plaintiff of an order of the
Magistrate Judge. The Court addresses the motions herein, seriatim.
Defendant filed a motion for a sanction of dismissal, asserting that plaintiff’s
litigation demonstrates a malicious intent to use her in forma pauperis status to
harass defendant (doc. 11). In support of the motion, defendant cites several cases
filed against it by the defendant. Though the numerous cases cited by defendant
are of concern to the Court, the Court also notes that dismissal is a serious sanction
that implicates due process. See, e.g., FDIC v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1380 (5th Cir.
1994). Moreover, defendant has not directed to the Court to any entry in the record
which demonstrates that plaintiff has previously been warned that she may be
sanctioned for the filing of repeated frivolous or vexatious filings.

See e.g.,

Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993) (noting that “[t]he imposition
of a sanction without a prior warning is to be avoided”).
Accordingly, the motion by defendant to dismiss (doc. 11) is DENIED, and
plaintiff’s Motion Not to Dismiss (doc. 12) is DISMISSED as moot.

Plaintiff is, however, cautioned that repeated, frivolous or vexatious
filings will subject her to appropriate sanctions. See e.g., BKS Properties v.
Shumate, 51 Fed.Appx 483 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting that sanctions are appropriate
where pro se parties abuse the judicial process); Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066
(5th Cir. 1998) cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1157, 119 S.Ct. 2044, 144 L.Ed.2d 212 (2007)
(noting that a district court has discretion to impose sanctions upon vexatious or
harassing litigants); Birdo v. Carl, 32 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that, in
considering the propriety of sanctions imposed on a pro se litigant, the court
considers whether the litigant received a warning prior to imposition of the
sanctions).
Plaintiff, noting that defendant has filed no answer in this matter, has also filed
a motion for entry of default. The Court notes, however, that defendant filed its
motion to dismiss prior to its deadline to answer, and plaintiff filed the motion for
default while the motion to dismiss was pending. Accordingly, the motion for default
(doc. 30) is DENIED, and IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s answer is due within
21 days of the issuance of this Ruling.
The matter having recently been reassigned, plaintiff’s motions to transfer or
reassign the matter (18, 22, 23, 47) and plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an
amended affidavit in support of the motion to transfer or reassign the matter (doc.
25) are DISMISSED as moot.

2

Plaintiff has also moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent the
“disposal of pertinent information, document, or files relevant to this case while this
court decides on the motions to dismiss or not to dismiss” (doc. 43). Because the
motion to dismiss and the motion not to dismiss have been addressed, the motion
for a temporary restraining order is DISMISSED as moot.
Because the Court has ruled on all of plaintiff’s other pending motions in this
matter, plaintiff”s motions to address the status of the pending motions (docs. 20,
21, 28, 29, 38, 40, 45, 46, 49) are DISMISSED as moot.
Plaintiff has also filed an appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying
plaintiff’s Request for Case File Original Records and Certified Docket Sheets (doc.
37). In reviewing the order in question, the Court must determine whether the order
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Having reviewed
the order at issue, the Court finds that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to
law. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Order of the Magistrate Judge dated
January 12, 2010 (doc. 105) is hereby AFFIRMED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 23, 2011.

BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3