Wilson v. Oklahoma, State of et al

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White granting motions to dismiss ( 38 Motion to Dismiss Party ; 38 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; 38 Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim ; 39 Motion to Dismiss ; 42 Motion to Dis miss Case for Failure to State a Claim ; 43 Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim), denying plaintiff's motions for default judgment ( 47 Motion for Default Judgment ; 48 Motion for Default Judgment)) and dismissing action with prejudice (lal, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-117-RAW

ORDER
Before the court are motions to dismiss of various defendants. Plaintiff is under a
filing restriction imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma. See Order dated November 29, 2012, CIV-12-1131-HE, attached as Exhibit 1
to docket #42 in this case. He evidently sought to file the present complaint in that court and
was denied for failing to observe the restrictions imposed. He then filed the complaint in this
court.* This court is empowered to take judicial notice of and enforce those restrictions. See
Srivastava v. City of Chicago, 2011 WL 1375003 (N.D.Ill.2011)(“[I]t is readily apparent that
Srivastava has filed her lawsuit here – despite the fact that nearly all the events she describes
are centered in Indiana, where she lives – to evade the filing restrictions that have been
imposed upon her in the federal courts in that state”).
Additionally, the court has reviewed the complaint. Much of it appears to be taken
up with challenging the filing restrictions. This issue should have been raised by an appeal

*

Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (#4) by Judge Payne, to whom the case was
previously assigned.

to the Tenth Circuit, not the filing of another lawsuit in another district. To the extent
allegations are made against named defendants, in a lawsuit involving multiple defendants,
it is particularly important that plaintiffs make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what
to whom. See Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210, 1225 (10th Cir.2013). The court finds
plaintiff has failed to make these specific allegations. Accordingly, dismissal is also
appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) F.R.Cv.P.
It is the order of the court that the motions to dismiss (##38, 39, 42 and 43) are
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment (##47 & 48) are DENIED, as the court
has found the complaint fails to state a claim as to any defendant, and was filed in evasion
of the Western District’s order. This action is dismissed with prejudice.
ORDERED THIS 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013.

Dated this 3rd day of September, 2013.

J4h4i0

2