Judd v. Secretary of State of Louisiana et al

Filing 3

OPINION regarding 1 Complaint filed by Keith Russell Judd. The plaintiff's complaint shall be dismissed. The dismissal of the complaint shall be with prejudice as to its refiling without meeting the requirements set forth in the various sanction orders issued by the Fifth Circuit as set forth herein. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 9/8/2011. (LSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD (#11593-051)
VERSUS
SECRETARY OF STATE OF
LOUISIANA, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER 11-393-BAJ-DLD

OPINION
Pro se plaintiff Keith Russell Judd, an inmate confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution, Texarkana, Texas, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Secretary of State. Plaintiff
alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights and several federal
voting statutes by refusing to place his name on the ballot for the 2012 Presidential
primary election.
A review of the United States District Court records shows that the plaintiff has
filed over 800 actions in federal courts throughout the United States. Plaintiff also
has a long history within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. In Judd v. Fox, 289 Fed.Appx. 795 (5th Cir., August 19, 2008), the
plaintiff challenged a conviction for mailing threatening communications with the
intent to extort money or something of value through a § 2241 petition. The Fifth
Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the claims raised were not cognizable
under § 2241 and stated the following:

In addition, Judd has a history of vexatious and frivolous litigation in this
court and many other courts. We have issued repeated warnings to
Judd, and we have sanctioned him for prior frivolous actions. These
earlier warnings and sanctions have been insufficient to deter him from
continuing to file frivolous challenges to his conviction.
Accordingly, Judd is ORDERED to pay a sanction in the amount of
$500 to the Clerk of this Court; and he is BARRED from filing in this
court or in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction, any challenge to
his conviction or sentence until all sanctions in all his actions are paid
in full, unless he first obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file
such challenge. Even after satisfaction of all sanction orders, Judd may
not file any civil action in a district court of this circuit, or any pleading
or notice of appeal with this court, without first obtaining leave of the
court in which he seeks to file such action, pleading or notice. When
seeking leave of court, Judd must certify that the claim he wishes to
present is a new one that has never before either been raised and
disposed of on the merits or remains pending, in any federal court.
Upon failure thus to certify or upon false certification, Judd may be
found in contempt of court and punished accordingly. Judd is
CAUTIONED that filing any frivolous or repetitive action or challenge to
his conviction or sentence, in this court or any court subject to this
court’s jurisdiction, will subject him to additional and progressively more
severe sanctions.
Judd v. Fox, 289 Fed.Appx. at 796.
In Judd v. The University of New Mexico, et al, slip op. no. 98-51060 (5th Cir.,
May 13, 1999), the Fifth Circuit sanctioned Judd $105.00 and ordered that “the Clerk
of this Court and the clerks of all federal district courts within this Circuit are directed
to refuse to file any pro se civil complaints or appeal by Judd unless Judd submits
proof of the satisfaction of this sanction.”
In Judd v. U.S. District Court, et al, slip op. no. 98-51118 (5th Cir., November
9, 2000), the Fifth Circuit again sanctioned Judd $105.00 and ordered that “the Clerk
of this Court and the clerks of all federal district courts within this Circuit are directed

to refuse to file any pro se civil complaint or appeal by Judd unless Judd submits
proof of the satisfaction of this sanction.”
In Judd v. Winn, et al, slip op. no. 03-50071 (5th Cir., November 20, 2003), the
Fifth Circuit once again sanctioned Judd $105.00 and ordered that “the Clerk of this
Court and the clerks of all federal district courts within this Circuit are directed to
refuse to file any action, appeal, motion, or pleading by Judd unless Judd submits
proof of the satisfaction of his monetary sanctions.”
In United States v. Judd, slip op. no. 08-50213 (5th Cir., October 7, 2009), the
Fifth Circuit sanctioned Judd $500.00 and barred Judd from filing any pro se civil
complaint or appeal until all sanctions are paid in full, unless he first obtains leave
of the court in which he seeks to file such challenges. The court also ordered that
Judd may not file any civil action in a district court of this circuit, or any pleading or
notice of appeal with the court, without first obtaining leave of court. Judd must also
certify that the claim is a new one that has never before either been raised or
disposed of on the merits or remains pending in any federal court.
Plaintiff has accumulated over $1000.00 in sanctions imposed as a result of
frivolous and vexatious filings. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the sanctions have
been satisfied. Plaintiff did not seek leave of court to file his complaint and he failed
to certify that the claims raised in this complaint are new and have never been raised
or disposed of on the merits or remains pending in any federal court. A review of
district court records showed that on June 9, 2011, the day prior to filing his

complaint in the Middle District of Louisiana, the plaintiff filed an identical complaint
in the Western District of Louisiana. That complaint remains pending on the court’s
docket. See Keith Russell Judd v. Secretary State of Louisiana, et al, CV 11-870RGJ-KLH.
Additionally, section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides in
pertinent part the following:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in
a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3
or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
In Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996), the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals held that: (1) section 1915(g) applies to cases pending on the effective
date of the statute; and, (2) a suit dismissed prior to the effective date of the statute
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, is considered within the ambit of the “three strikes” provision of
section 1915(g). Dismissals as frivolous in the district courts or the court of appeals
count for the purposes of the statute. Id. Dismissals include only those for which
appeal has been exhausted or waived. Id. However, dismissals later reversed are
not to be counted as a strike. Id. By contrast, the frivolous appeal of a lower court’s
dismissal as frivolous counts twice. Id.

Plaintiff has, on more than three prior occasions, while incarcerated, brought
an action in federal court that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Section 1915(g) contains an exception that
allows prisoners whose privileges have been revoked to proceed in forma pauperis
in cases involving imminent danger of serious physical injury.

However, the

plaintiff’s claims do not fall under the exception.
Because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he has paid the sanctions
imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, he failed to
obtain leave of court to file his complaint, he failed to certify that the claims raised
in the complaint have never been raised or disposed of on the merits or remains
pending in any federal court and he failed to pay the $350.00 filing fee, the complaint
shall be dismissed. The dismissal of the complaint shall be with prejudice as to its
refiling without meeting the requirements set forth in the various sanction orders
issued by the Fifth Circuit as set forth herein.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 8, 2011.

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