Williams v. Department of Justice

Filing 7

ORDER accepting 5 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice as barred by sanctions and sovereign immunity. Any pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by District Judge J. Campbell Barker on 3/10/2025. (ndc)

No. 6:24-cv-00265
Jay Williams,
Plaintiff,
v.
Department of Justice,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Jay Williams, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
lawsuit complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional
rights. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
John D. Love. Doc. 4.
Plaintiff has filed almost 50 frivolous lawsuits in the Eastern
District of Texas. Further, Williams is subject to sanctions that
require any new lawsuits he files to be signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the Eastern District of Texas with the full
filing fee paid at the outset of the case. Williams v. United States
Court, No. 6:23-cv-00355, Doc. 7 at 2–3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12,
2023). He filed the present case in the Western District of Pennsylvania in an apparent attempt to evade these sanctions.
The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the
lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice as barred by sanctions and
sovereign immunity. Doc. 5. Plaintiff did not file objections to the
report. Plaintiff wrote a letter asking for discovery and complaining about an unspecified breach of attorney-client privilege. Doc.
6. But this letter fails to address the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and cannot be construed as objections to the report.
When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for
clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s
-1-

report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court
accepts its findings and recommendation. Plaintiff’s lawsuit is
dismissed without prejudice as barred by sanctions and sovereign
immunity.1 Any pending motions are denied as moot.
Plaintiff Jay Williams is warned that further attempts to evade
the court’s sanctions could result in the imposition of additional
sanctions, monetary or otherwise, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 and the inherent powers of the court. See Jackson v.
Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991).
So ordered by the court on March 10, 2025.

J. C AM PB EL L B A RK ER
United States District Judge

1

The magistrate judge’s report recommended that the case be “dismissed
with prejudice as barred by sanctions and sovereign immunity,” but it also
noted that “[p]laintiff may refile such civil actions as he believes appropriate
by doing so through a licensed attorney . . . and upon payment of the full filing
fee.” Doc. 5 at 3 (emphasis added). Sovereign-immunity dismissals are jurisdictional and without prejudice. Warnock v. Pecos Cnty., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th
Cir. 1996). Also, given that the magistrate judge expressed an intent in allowing
plaintiff to refile his case (while complying with the conditions of his sanctions), the court finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate here .

-2-