Flores v. United States Attorney General et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2550) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge John G. Heyburn II, Chairman, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 8/12/2014. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2550, TXE/1:14-cv-00198, UT/2:13-cv-00390, UT/2:13-cv-00391, UT/2:14-cv-00245 (TL)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ERIC FLORES LITIGATION (No. III)

MDL No. 2550

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff Eric Flores, pro se, seeks
centralization in the District of the District of Columbia of four actions he has filed in two different
districts.1 No party responded to the motions.
After considering all arguments of the pro se litigant, we will deny centralization. These
actions share some factual questions concerning, inter alia, plaintiff’s allegations that numerous
unnamed federal Executive branch officials conspired to harm him, members of his family, and a
postal investigator inquiring into his complaints of mail theft by using a sophisticated satellite-based
technology capable of altering these individuals’ genetic code. This satellite technology also allegedly
caused a variety of afflictions, ranging from a liver abscess and a heart attack, to gastrointestinal
distress and cocaine addiction, in addition to causing plaintiff’s various family members to commit
adultery in contravention of their religious beliefs. Further, plaintiff contends that this same group
of government officials have filed bogus documents in his various court cases purporting to dismiss
his claims.
Plaintiff has once again failed to convince us that the factual allegations in these actions are
sufficiently plausible to warrant centralization. As a practical matter, there are only four actions at
issue here, and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that centralization will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a); In re Transocean Ltd. Secs. Litig. (No. II), 753 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374
(J.P.M.L. 2010) (“As we have stated in the past, where only a minimal number of actions are
involved, the moving party generally bears a heavier burden of demonstrating the need for
centralization.”).
The motions before us now represent plaintiff’s third attempt at centralization of his cases
relating to frivolous allegations about genetic-code-altering satellite technology. Plaintiff’s first
motion was mooted when the litigation lost its multidistrict character. The second motion was denied
in April 2014, and we cautioned plaintiff that further frivolous filings would result in restrictions
*

1

Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Plaintiff filed three essentially identical motions. These motions originally included a total of
five actions, but one of those actions was dismissed during the pendency of the motions for
centralization.

-2placed on his ability to file materials before the Panel. See In re: Eric Flores Litigation (No.II), —
F. Supp. 2d —, 2014 WL 1338502 (J.P.M.L., April 1, 2014) (citing In re: David Kissi, et al. (No.
III), 923 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (taking judicial notice of plaintiffs’ frivolous filings and
vexatious and harassing course of conduct in various federal courts and directing the Clerk of the
Panel to accept no documents for filing relating to the subject matter of instant litigation without first
obtaining leave of the Panel)). Twenty days after the Panel’s denial issued, plaintiff filed his current
motions, which are largely repetitive of the previous filings. Plaintiff has failed to heed our previous
admonition to cease filing frivolous motions before this Court, and we now instruct the Clerk of the
Panel to accept no documents relating to the subject matter of plaintiff’s prior motions for
centralization without leave of the Panel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for
centralization of these actions are denied;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Panel is directed to accept no document
submitted by plaintiff Eric Flores for filing that relates to the subject matter of this litigation unless
and until leave is granted by the Panel to file the same.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

_________________________________________
John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Sarah S. Vance

IN RE: ERIC FLORES LITIGATION (No. III)

MDL No. 2550

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of Texas
FLORES v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00198
District of Utah
FLORES v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:13-00390
FLORES v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:13-00391
FLORES v. HOLDER, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00245