Murray, Jr. v. Fussell, Jr.

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 08/01/14. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(emw)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00158-MR-DLH

DONNELL EDWIN MURRAY, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL TAYLOR FUSSELL, JR.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s “Application for
Entry of Default Against Defendant Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 55” [Doc. 8].
The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s action on July 2, 2014. [Doc. 3].
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for entry of default against the Defendant
is frivolous and must be denied.
Litigants do not have an absolute and unconditional right of access to
the courts in order to prosecute frivolous, successive, abusive or vexatious
actions. See Demos v. Keating, 33 F. App’x 918 (10th Cir. 2002); Tinker v.
Hanks, 255 F.3d 444, 445 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 956 (2002); In re
Vincent, 105 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1997). District courts have inherent power
to control the judicial process and to redress conduct which abuses that

process. Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir.
2001).
The Plaintiff is hereby informed that future frivolous filings will result in
the imposition of a pre-filing review system. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am.,
Inc., 390 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2004); Vestal v. Clinton, 106 F.3d 553 (4th Cir.
1997). If such a system is placed in effect, pleadings presented to the
Court which are not made in good faith and which do not contain substance
will be summarily dismissed as frivolous. Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556 (4th
Cir. 1997); In re Joseph Marion Head, 19 F.3d 1429 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
513 U.S. 999 (1994).

Thereafter, if such writings persist, the pre-filing

system may be modified to include an injunction from filings. In re Martin–
Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Application [Doc.
8] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2