Davis v. Hinds County, Mississippi et al

Filing 104

ORDER denying 103 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 10/25/2017. Copy mailed to plaintiff at address listed on docket sheet. (AC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
CHAKAKHAN R. DAVIS

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-874-CWR-LRA

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI;
TYRONE LEWIS; JERRY ARINDER;
BRENDA JONES; JOHNNY JENKINS

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s third motion for the undersigned to recuse himself from
this litigation. See Docket Nos. 85, 101, and 103. Her previous motions have been denied. See
Docket No. 87 and Text-Only Order of Sept. 25, 2017.
There are (at least) two problems with her present request. First, it is yet another example
of the plaintiff’s frivolous, vexatious, and abusive litigation practices. See, e.g., Davis v. WalMart Stores, No. 3:14-CV-375-HTW-LRA, Docket No. 115 at 4 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 28, 2016)
(recounting plaintiff’s history as a recreational litigant). Second, a substantial portion of the
motion is plagiarized from other sources. Compare Docket No. 103 at 1-2 with John
Ferejohn, Independent Judges, Dependent Judiciary: Explaining Judicial Independence, 72 S.
Cal. L. Rev. 353, 355 (1999) (“Independence seems to have at least two meanings. . . .”). Both
problems are violations of Davis’s obligations as a litigant in this Court.
“Federal courts have an inherent power to sanction a party or attorney when necessary to
achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of their dockets.” Terra Partners v. Rabo
Agrifinance, Inc., 504 F. App’x 288, 290 (5th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Federal courts also have broad authority “to deter vexatious, abusive, and harassing litigation.”
Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). It was

just last month, in fact, that the plaintiff was warned about her pattern of vexatious litigation and
its potential consequences:
[T]the Court would urge Davis to proceed with caution. In this or any other case,
should a judge make findings that Davis has engaged in vexatious litigation or acted
in bad faith, the judge may (among many other potential sanctions) issue an Order
requiring Davis to receive prior court approval before filing any new lawsuit in this
district. See Prewitt v. Alexander, 173 F.R.D. 438, 442-44 (N.D. Miss. 1996). One
hopes we need not reach that point.
Docket No. 100 at 2. That she renewed her motion for recusal suggests that she did not take this
warning to heart.
“Raising a patently frivolous legal argument and threatening continued meritless
litigation is the definition of bad faith.” Terra Partners, 504 F. App’x at 290. The Court finds
that the plaintiff’s third motion for recusal is frivolous and filed in bad faith.1 To be clear, any
future filing found to be frivolous will earn the plaintiff a monetary sanction or such other
sanction, including dismissal of this action, that the Court deems appropriate.
The motion is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 25th day of October, 2017.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The plaintiff’s pro se status “offers [her] no impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass
others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson
v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).

2