Plante v. The United States Department of the Interior
ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendations; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and dismissing 1 Compaint. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 2/12/15. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
WESLEY DANA PLANTE
d/b/a THE PLANTE ENERGY GROUP,
C.A. No. 14-519 S
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Lincoln D. Almond issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in
recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, under 28
Plaintiff filed an incomprehensible objection to the R&R.
Because this Court agrees with Judge Almond’s analysis
of the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s complaint, it hereby accepts,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the portion of the R&R that
recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint.
represents the sixth frivolous action that Plaintiff has filed
in this Court, Plaintiff be enjoined from filing any additional
currently pending cases to object to an R&R or to effect an
appeal – without first obtaining the prior written approval of a
district judge of this Court.
(R&R 4-5, ECF No. 3.)
processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.”
Gordon v. United
States Dep’t of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir. 1977) (per
Although “the use of [an injunction of this type]
against a pro se plaintiff should be approached with particular
1980), this Court agrees with Judge Almond that such a measure
is appropriate in this case.
For starters, as recognized by Judge Almond, Plaintiff has
persistently filed blatantly frivolous lawsuits.
Plaintiff’s filings in each of these cases have routinely been
described as “disjointed and confusing” (R&R 3, ECF No. 3; see
“incomprehensible” (C.A. No. 08-281 S, Order 1, ECF No. 3; C.A.
No. 10-217 ML, R&R 3, ECF No. 4; C.A. No. 10-217 ML, Order
Adopting R&R 1, ECF No. 6.).
(See also C.A. No. 13-45 M, Order
1-2, ECF No. 3 (dismissing frivolous complaint and denying leave
comprehensible”); C.A. No. 13-261 M, Order 2, ECF No. 3 (same).)
The complaints in these cases, even when these pro se pleadings
are viewed liberally, invariably fail to identify the basis for
hopelessly frivolous suits.
Moreover, this Court’s decision to enjoin Plaintiff from
filing any further cases without prior Court approval is not
based solely on the frequency with which Plaintiff files suit.
Cf. Pavilonis, 626 F.2d at 1079 (“[L]itigiousness alone will not
support an injunction against a plaintiff.”).
frivolous claims in a subsequent lawsuit when he is unsuccessful
the first time.
In C.A. No. 13-261, Plaintiff, referencing a
2002 letter from the Department of the Interior, appeared to
seek money damages for Congress’s failure to extend a thirtyyear lease of United States land in the Nulato Hills Partnership
area; he sued an associate chief counsel of a branch of the
Internal Revenue Service.
(C.A. No. 13-261, Compl., ECF No. 1;
see also Ex. B to Compl., ECF No. 1-2.)
In this case, Plaintiff
has sued the Department of the Interior and appears to seek
extension of this same thirty-year lease; Plaintiff attached the
same letter from the Department of the Interior as an exhibit to
(ECF No. 1-1.) 1
Thus, Plaintiff appears to be
Pavilonis, 626 F.2d at 1079 (affirming district court’s entry of
“lawsuits were at least to some extent duplicative” and “all her
complaints suffered from the same deficiencies”).
Plaintiff initiates patently frivolous actions in this Court and
claims against the same or similar defendants – convince this
Court that Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial process has been
Cok v. Family Ct. of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32,
Accordingly, this Court hereby orders that:
Because of the incomprehensible nature of Plaintiff’s
filings, it is difficult to ascertain the precise claims
asserted in Plaintiff’s complaints and the factual basis for
Plaintiff Wesley Dana Plante is, unless represented by
complaints or other papers in this Court – except for
filings in currently pending cases to effect an appeal
from this Court – without first obtaining the prior
written approval of a District or Magistrate Judge of
If Plaintiff wishes to file any
additional complaints or other papers in this Court,
he shall file a written petition seeking leave of
Court to do so.
The petition must be accompanied by
copies of the documents sought to be filed and a
certification under oath that there is a good faith
basis for filing them in federal court and a nonfrivolous basis for granting relief authorized under
Failure to so certify, or a false
certification, may result in Plaintiff being found in
contempt of court and the imposition of sanctions.
The Clerk of Court shall accept the documents, mark
them received, and forward them to a District or
Magistrate Judge of this Court for action on the
petition for leave to file.
For these reasons, the R&R is ADOPTED, Plaintiff’s Motion
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Date: February 12, 2015
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?