Willis v. Town of Trenton et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 1 Motion to File a New Civil Action and finding as moot 20 and 22 Motions to Expedite. Signed by Senior Judge Malcolm J. Howard on 10/8/2020. Copy to plaintiff via US mail. (Lee, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
4:19-MC-1-H

DANIEL J. WILLIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

TRENTON TOWN COUNCIL, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file a new civil action [DE #1].

The instant matter is

one in a plethora of actions plaintiff Daniel J. Willis has brought
or attempted to bring against various defendants for more than two
decades.

Plaintiff is subject to two prefiling injunctions in the

Eastern District of North Carolina, one entered by this court and
one entered by the Fourth Circuit.
Because

of

plaintiff=s

history

of

frivolous

filings

and

appeals, by order dated March 17, 1997, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 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 of Trenton, No. 96-2066 (4th
Cir. Mar. 17, 1997); see also Willis v. Town of Trenton, No. 4:96CV-6-H(4) (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2002) (imposing additional prefiling
injunction), aff=d, No. 02-1510 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 2002).
In the Fourth Circuit=s March 17, 1997, prefiling injunction,
the court noted that plaintiff had by then already amassed an
Aexceptional history of frivolous filings and appeals,@ and found
it necessary to take Aextraordinary measures to safeguard its
resources for those litigants who seek its services in good faith.@
Id.
The Fourth Circuit’s prefiling injunction dictates the manner
in which Mr. Willis may seek leave of court to file:
In seeking such leave, Willis shall file a
motion for leave to file a pleading in a
pending action or a new civil action with an
attached copy of his proposed complaint and
the motion shall be supported by Willis’s
affidavit.
The affidavit attached to the
motion shall concisely state the following
information:
(1) the names of all proposed
defendants;
(2)
the
primary
factual
allegations upon which Willis’s 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
2

case; (6) if Willis
named defendant, he
name, court, date,
listing of all other

has previously sued any
will indicate the case
and outcome; and (7) a
cases previously filed.

Prefiling Injunction at 2 (emphasis in original).
The Fourth Circuit has ordered that if Mr. Willis’s “motion,
affidavit or filings fail to satisfy the designated requirements
in any manner, the motion will not be considered.”

Prefiling

Injunction at 2.
Additionally, in 2002, this court enjoined plaintiff from
“filing any additional cases in this district involving the Town
of Trenton or defendant Leggett without prior approval of the
court.”

Willis v. Town of Trenton, No. 4:96-CV-6-H(4) (E.D.N.C.

Apr. 5, 2002) (imposing additional prefiling injunction), aff=d,
No. 02-1510 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 2002).
A review of the motion and affidavit before the court today
reveals

that

plaintiff

Willis

has

failed

to

comply

with

the

requirements for the affidavit as contained in the Fourth Circuit’s
prefiling

injunction.

For

example,

the

list

of

proposed

defendants (Requirement Number One) does not match the defendants
listed on the proposed complaint.

Additionally, Willis fails to

comply with Requirement Number Six, namely to indicate the case
name, court, date, and outcome for any case in which he has
previously sued a named defendant.
This court understands that providing this information for
3

each case against any defendants that Mr. Willis has previously
filed could prove to be an onerous task, as he has been such a
prolific filer.

However, this is the exact reason that the Fourth

Circuit has placed such requirements on Mr. Willis.

Furthermore,

this court must follow the order of the Fourth Circuit.

Inasmuch

as Mr. Willis has failed to comply with the requirements of the
prefiling injunction, this court cannot consider his motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to
file is DENIED. All other pending motions are deemed moot.

The

clerk is directed to close these matters.
This 8th

day of October 2020.

MALCOLM J. HOWARD
Senior United States District Judge
At Greenville, NC
#26

4