Plante v. The United States Department of the Interior
Filing
5
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
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
)
INTERIOR,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
WESLEY DANA PLANTE
d/b/a THE PLANTE ENERGY GROUP,
C.A. No. 14-519 S
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
On
December
12,
2014,
United
States
Magistrate
Judge
Lincoln D. Almond issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in
the
above-captioned
matter
(ECF
No.
3).
Judge
Almond
recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, under 28
U.S.C.
fails
§
1015(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii),
to
state
a
claim
on
because
which
it
relief
is
may
frivolous
be
granted.
Plaintiff filed an incomprehensible objection to the R&R.
No. 4.)
and
(ECF
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.
Judge
Almond
also
recommended
that,
because
this
case
represents the sixth frivolous action that Plaintiff has filed
in this Court, Plaintiff be enjoined from filing any additional
complaints
or
papers
in
this
Court
–
except
for
filings
in
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.)
“well
proper
established
injunction
to
that
issue
it
is
barring
a
party
and
.
.
It is
necessary
.
processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.”
from
for
filing
an
and
Gordon v. United
States Dep’t of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir. 1977) (per
curiam).
Although “the use of [an injunction of this type]
against a pro se plaintiff should be approached with particular
caution,”
Pavilonis
v.
King,
626
F.2d
1075,
1079
(1st
Cir.
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.
case,
Plaintiff
has
recently
filed
six
cases
Including this
in
this
Court.
Plaintiff’s filings in each of these cases have routinely been
described as “disjointed and confusing” (R&R 3, ECF No. 3; see
also
C.A.
No.
07-156
ML,
R&R
3,
ECF
No.
3)
and
“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
2
1-2, ECF No. 3 (dismissing frivolous complaint and denying leave
to
file
believe
amended
that
complaint
an
because
amended
there
complaint
was
“no
reason
be
any
would
to
more
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
federal
jurisdiction,
supporting
demonstrated
the
Plaintiff’s
a
claims
penchant
for
or
In
claims.
asserted,
Plaintiff
sum,
bombarding
this
the
Court
facts
has
with
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.”).
also
demonstrated
that
he
will
not
hesitate
Plaintiff has
to
reassert
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;
3
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
his complaint.
(ECF No. 1-1.) 1
reasserting
in
this
similar
the
to
case
claim
he
a
Thus, Plaintiff appears to be
claim
asserted
that
the
same
C.A.
in
is
or
No.
very
13-261.
See
Pavilonis, 626 F.2d at 1079 (affirming district court’s entry of
a
filing
injunction
against
a
pro
se
plaintiff
where
her
“lawsuits were at least to some extent duplicative” and “all her
complaints suffered from the same deficiencies”).
These
twin
evils
—
the
trigger-happy
manner
in
which
Plaintiff initiates patently frivolous actions in this Court and
his
demonstrated
willingness
to
reassert
the
same
frivolous
claims against the same or similar defendants – convince this
Court that Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial process has been
“so
continuous
and
widespread
as
to
suggest
no
reasonable
alternative.”
Cok v. Family Ct. of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32,
36
1993);
(1st
Cir.
see
also
Pavilonis,
626
F.2d
at
1079.
Accordingly, this Court hereby orders that:
1
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
those claims.
4
Plaintiff Wesley Dana Plante is, unless represented by
counsel,
prohibited
from
filing
any
additional
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
this Court.
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
the law.
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
to
Proceed
IFP
is
GRANTED,
but
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: February 12, 2015
5
Plaintiff’s
complaint
is
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?