Windsor v. Snap et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying Plaintiff's request for leave to file Complaint 1 ; denying as moot Plaintiff's Complaint seeking temporary restraining order and injunctive relief; and denying as moot 4 Motion for Clarification of Filing Method. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 10/16/15. (DJP)

l~ILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

OCT 1 6 W15

'()) l
:~~..~-~~

'.

,.

'~'-ERK

******************************************************************************
*
WILLIAM M WINDSOR,
CIV 15-MC-00098
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
ORDER
V.
*
*
GINGER SNAP, et al.,
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
******************************************************************************
Before the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff William M. Windsor's Complaint seeking temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against Defendants Ginger Snap,
et al. Doc. 1-2. Based on the Defendants named in the petition and the allegations contained therein,
the Court finds the action to be frivolous. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) ("Over
the years this Court has repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims
otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely
devoid of merit[] [or] obviously frivolous[.]") (internal citations and quotations omitted). See Porter
v. Fox, 99 F.3d 271 (8th Cir. 1996) (affirming district court's sua sponte dismissal of "fee-paid,
nonprisoner-filed complaint" under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Ass 'n, 469
F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989))
('"[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional and there is no
constitutional right to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious."') (alteration
in original).
In any event, pursuant to an Order from United States District Court, Northern District of
Georgia, Windsor is permanently enjoined from filing any complaint in any federal court without first
obtaining leave from the federal district court wherein the complaint is to be filed. Pursuant to that
Order, Windsor filed a request for leave from this Court on July 1, 2015. Doc. 1. Finding that the
underlying Complaint is frivolous, however, the request for leave is denied. See Jn re Martin-Trigona,

737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2nd Cir. 1984) (upholding a court order restricting plaintiffs access to all
federal courts. ''We need not wait until a vexatious litigant inundates each federal district court with
meritless actions to condition access to that court upon a demonstration of good faith."); Martin-

Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387 (11th Cir. 1993) (''The only restriction this Circuit has placed
upon injunctions designed to protect against abusive and vexatious litigation is that a litigant cannot
be completely foreclosed from any access to the court. This Court has upheld pre-filing screening
restrictions on litigious plaintiffs.") (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original). See also In re

Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10th Cir.
1981 )) ("'The Court may, in its discretion, place reasonable restrictions on any litigant who files nonmeritorious actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally abuses judicial process.
These restrictions may be directed to provide limitations or conditions on the filing of future suits."').
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
( 1)

That Plaintiffs request for leave to file the Complaint, Doc. 1, is denied.

(2)

That Plaintiffs Complaint seeking temporary restraining order and injunctive
relief is denied as moot.

(3)

That Plaintiffs Motion for Clarification of Filing Method, Doc. 4, is denied
as moot.

Dated this

uJJ. day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Q~.c!~
United States District Judge

2