Willis v. Town of Trenton, North Carolina et al
ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to File and denying as moot 4 Motion (Petition) for Writ of Mandamus. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 2/2/2017. Certified copy of the order sent to Daniel J. Willis via US Mail to 105 Cherry St., Trenton, NC 28585. (Stouch, L.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DANIEL J. WILLIS,
TOWN OF TRENTON,
NORTH CAROLINA, et al.,
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a complaint in this Court. Plaintiff is currently the subject of
two prefiling injunctions, one entered by this Court and one by the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth
Circuit has enjoined plaintiff
from filing pleadings in any pending lawsuit, or commencing, or attempting to
initiate any new lawsuit, action, proceeding, or matter in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against any person or entity in
forma pauperis without first obtaining leave of the court to so proceed.
Prefiling Injunction, Willis v. Town ofTrenton, No. 96-2066 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 1997), see also
Willis v. Town ofTrenton, No. 4:96-CV-6-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2002) (enjoining plaintiff from
filing any additional cases in this district against the Town of Trenton without prior approval).
In its injunction, the court of appeals further held that in seeking leave to file a complaint,
plaintiff shall file a motion for leave supported by an affidavit which states concisely the
( 1) the names of all proposed defendants; (2) the primary factual allegations upon
which Willis' claim or pleading is based; (3) the legal basis for the claim
pleading; (4) whether Willis has previously litigated the claim in any court or
administrative forum; (5) whether Willis ever sued the named defendants in any
other civil case; (6) if Willis has previously sued any named defendant, he will
indicate the case name, court, date, and outcome; and (7) a listing of all other
cases previously filed.
Id. Upon such filing the court will consider whether a legal claim has been stated, and failure to
comply with the requirements of the prefiling injunction in any way will result in the motion for
leave not being considered. Id.
In support of the instant motion for leave, plaintiff has attached an affidavit which
provides that the factual allegations upon which his claim or pleading are based is "Due Process
and Equal Protection," and the legal basis for his claim or pleading is "42 U.S.C.A. Section
1983." Plaintiff has plainly failed to comply with the Fourth Circuit's directive and the Court
need not consider his motion for leave. Moreover, having reviewed plaintiffs proposed
complaint, no legal claim has been stated. Plaintiff appears to seek to re-litigate the propriety of
his prefiling injunctions, contending that defendants are a secret society that entered into a
scheme to interfere with the judicial machinery. Plaintiff cites an order by this Court entered in
1995 declining to impose a prefiling injunction at that time as the basis for his complaint. See
No. 7:95-MC-17-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 12, 1995).
Accordingly, having carefully considered plaintiffs filings, the Court determines that
plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the prefiling injunctions and plaintiffs
motion for leave [DE 1] is DENIED. The remaining pending motion [DE 4] is DENIED AS
MOOT. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED, this__£___ day of February, 2017.
TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?