Walsh v. United States House of Representatives

Filing 15

ORDER Adopting 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by John R. Walsh, III Clerk shall refer any future claim which Walsh files to the assigned Judge for pre-acceptance review. (See order for details). ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 6/13/17. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN WALSH, III,

:

Plaintiff

:

v.

:

U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-0486
(Mannion, D.J.)
(Carlson, M.J.)

:
:

Defendants
ORDER
On April 11, 2017, the court issued a Memorandum, (Doc. 6), and an
Order, (Doc. 7), directing that the report of Judge Carlson, (Doc. 4), is
ADOPTED

IN

ITS

ENTIRETY,

Walsh’s

objections,

(Doc.5),

are

OVERRULED, and Walsh’s complaint, (Doc.1), is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
However, the court did not close this case. Rather, the court referred
this case to Judge Carlson to conduct show cause proceedings, affording
Walsh notice and an opportunity to be heard, and to issue a Report and
Recommendation as to whether the court should issue a pre-filing injunction
against Walsh under 28 U.S.C. §1651(a),enjoining Walsh from filing any new
civil action, motions, papers, or requests for relief in any civil actions in the
Middle District of Pennsylvania without seeking and obtaining a court order
allowing his filing.
On April 18, 2017, Judge Carlson issued a Show Cause Order, (Doc.
8), directing as follows:

on or before May 18, 2017, the plaintiff [Walsh] shall respond to
this Order and show cause why he should not be required to
obtain the prior approval of the court before lodging any new
complaints relating to the same subject matter of past frivolous
litigation. A failure to respond to this Order in a timely manner
may be deemed a waiver of any opportunity to contest this show
cause order.
On April 24 and April 25, 2017, Walsh filed two nonsensical documents.
(Doc. 9, Doc. 10). Neither document responded to Judge Carlson’s Show
Cause Order in a coherent fashion.
On

April

27,

2017,

Judge

Carlson

issued

a

Report

and

Recommendation in which he considered Walsh’s two stated filings, (Doc. 9,
Doc. 10), and “recommended that the court enter an order in this case
requiring Mr. Walsh to obtain the prior approval of the court before lodging
any new complaints relating to the same subject matter of his past frivolous
litigation.” (Doc. 11).
On May 16, 2017, Walsh filed a document entitled “Response To The
Sad And Pathetic Correspondence From This Court Dated April 27, 2017.”
(Doc. 12). The clerk of court docketed this document as objections to Judge
Carlson’s report. The document consists of three pages, five exhibits attached
which are merely statements by Walsh that do not make any sense. Neither
the document itself nor the exhibits have any relevance to the Show Cause
Order Judge Carlson issued. Indeed, none of Walsh’s filings present a
meritorious basis for opposing an injunction order.

2

When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of
the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard is de novo,
the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge,
and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the
extent it deems proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa.
2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no
objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also
Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.
2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)
(explaining judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not,
the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
This court, in its sound discretion, can impose restrictions upon a
litigant’s right to future litigation. See Abulkhair v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 405
Fed.Appx. 570 (3d Cir. 2011).
3

In Grossberger v. Ruane, 535 Fed.Appx. 84, 86 (3d Cir. 2013), the Third
Circuit stated:
A pre-filing injunction is an exception to the general rule of free
access to the courts and its use against a pro se plaintiff must be
approached with caution. See In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d
Cir. 1982). However, a District Court may enjoin a pro se litigant
from future filings so long as the injunction complies with three
requirements: (1) the litigant must be continually abusing the
judicial process; (2) the litigant must be given notice of the
potential injunction and an opportunity to oppose the court’s
order; and (3) the injunction must be narrowly tailored to fit the
specific circumstances of the case. Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d
1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993).
The court has considered Walsh’s responses to the Show Cause Order
and to Judge Carlson’s report. Based on Judge Carlson’s report as well as
Walsh’s responses, which demonstrate that Walsh is continually abusing the
judicial process, and that Walsh was given ample notice of a potential
injunction and an opportunity to respond, the court agrees with Judge Carlson
that “we have now regrettably reached the point where such a limited and
narrowly tailored order is now appropriate regulating Walsh’s future civil
filings.” (Doc. 11, p. 7). As such, the “extreme remedy” of a filing injunction is
warranted based on Walsh’s filings in this case as well as his filings in his
numerous other cases in this court. See Abdul–Akbar, 901 F.2d at 332. In
short, Walsh has “established a pattern of groundless and vexatious
litigation.” Grossberger, 535 Fed.Appx. at 86 (quoting Chipps v. United States
Dist. Ct. for the Middle Dist. of Pa., 882 F.2d 72, 73 (3d Cir. 1989)). Moreover,

4

“[Walsh’s] filings are not only numerous, they are also without any merit.” Id.
(citing In re Oliver, 682 F.2d at 446). Walsh was afforded notice and he had
sufficient time to respond to a proposed injunction, both which satisfy due
process requirements. Id. (citation omitted); Abulkhair, 405 Fed.Appx. at 575
(“It is settled that an injunction against filing ‘should not be imposed by a court
without prior notice and some occasion to respond.’”) (quoting Gagliardi v.
McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1987)).
Since the court will issue an injunction, it must issue one “that is
narrowly tailored to fit the circumstances of this case.” Id. (citing Abdul–Akbar
v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329, 332 (3d Cir. 1990) (allowing the district courts to
issue an injunction that requires a litigant to obtain approval before making
further filings); Chipps, 882 F.2d at 73 (limiting scope of injunction to a
specific case, when the vexatious litigant’s abuse was confined to that case)).
As Judge Carlson suggests, the court will issue the following narrowly tailored
injunction which the Third Circuit in Abdul-Akbar, 901 F.2d at 333, approved:
directing that [Walsh] not file any [ ] claims without leave of court
and that in seeking leave of court, [Walsh] certify (1) that the
claims he wishes to present are new claims never before raised
and disposed of on the merits by any federal courts, (2) that he
believes the facts alleged in his complaint to be true, and (3) that
he knows of no reason to believe his claims are foreclosed by
controlling law.
Finally, on June 1, 2017, Walsh filed a 1-page document entitled
“Motion for Final Judgment” in which he simply requests the court for

5

$150,000 in damages and for the court to order the return of his property,
including his three tents, legal documents and pillow. (Doc. 14). However,
Walsh fails to recognize that his complaint, (Doc.1), in this action was
previously dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 7). Thus, he is not entitled to
judgment in his favor in this case. As such, Walsh’s Motion for Final Judgment
will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the report of Judge
Carlson, (Doc. 11), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Walsh’s objections,
(Doc.12), are OVERRULED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED THAT Walsh’s Motion
for Final Judgment, (Doc. 14), is DENIED.
Further, IT IS ORDERED THAT Walsh may not file any claims without
leave of court and that in seeking leave of court, Walsh must certify (1) that
the claims he wishes to present are new claims never before raised and
disposed of on the merits by any federal courts, (2) that he believes the facts
alleged in his complaint to be true, and (3) that he knows of no reason to
believe his claims are foreclosed by controlling law. If Walsh fails to file his
certification as directed by the court or if he files a false certification, he may
be found in contempt of court and punished according to the law.
Additionally, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the clerk of court shall
refer any future claim which Walsh files to the assigned judge for pre
acceptance review as to whether Walsh should be granted leave of court to
file his claim based on the above directives.
6

Finally, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the clerk of court shall close
this case.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Date: June 13, 2017
O:\Mannion\shared\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2017 ORDERS\17-0486-01.wpd

7