Hawkins v. AT&T

Filing 8

Order Accepting 4 Findings Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The court, however, rejects the magistrate judge's recommendation that a $50 sanction be imposed, as it believes, given Plaintiff's h istory, a $100 sanction is necessary to stop Plaintiff's frivolous conduct and to ensure compliance with the court's orders. The clerk's docket reflects that Plaintiff is a serial litigator. The court orders that Plaintiff be sanctioned $100 and that this sanction must be paid prior to the clerk accepting any further complaints or filings from Plaintiff. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/23/2015) (twd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MONICA REGINA HAWKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-336-L

ORDER
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney, who entered Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on February
10, 2015, recommending that the court summarily dismiss this action; that Plaintiff be sanctioned
$50; and that this sanction be paid prior to the court accepting any further complaints from Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has filed no objection as of the date of this order.
Plaintiff sent a letter to the court on March 27, 2015, and she “request[s] a gag order [be]
place[d] on all federal case[s] filed.” Pl.’s Letter (Doc. 5). She states that she has written the White
House to grant this “gag order” and that she plans to address this matter with the EEOC. This does
not affect the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the court dismiss this action with prejudice
because it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions
of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions
are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses with prejudice
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant.
Order - Page 1

The court, however, rejects the magistrate judge’s

recommendation that a $50 sanction be imposed, as it believes, given Plaintiff’s history, a $100
sanction is necessary to stop Plaintiff’s frivolous conduct and to ensure compliance with the court’s
orders. The clerk’s docket reflects that Plaintiff is a serial litigator.* The court orders that Plaintiff
be sanctioned $100 and that this sanction must be paid prior to the clerk accepting any further
complaints or filings from Plaintiff. The court will issue a judgment in a separate document pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 58(a).
The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good
faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court
accepts and incorporates by reference the Report and the court’s order accepting the Report. See
Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the foregoing orders, the
court concludes that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and
would therefore be frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event of
an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal with clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, she
must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”),
unless she has been granted IFP status by the district court.

*

Plaintiff was a party in the following 9 cases: (1) Hawkins v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 12-cv-01453-MBN; (2) Hawkins v. RNB Smooth 105.7, 12-cv-01469-P; (3) Hawkins v. K104, 12-cv-01471-M; (4) Hawkins v. Radio
One, 12-cv-1472; (5) Hawkins v. Harvey, 12-cv-01702-M; (6) Hawkins v. Merrifield Elementary et al., 12-cv-01738-B;
(7) Hawkins v. WFAA/ABC, 14-cv-00502-P-BK; (8) Hawkins v. CBS 11 News, 14-cv-00503-B-BN; and (9) Hawkins
v. Griffin, 14-cv-00504-N-BH. All of these cases have been dismissed, some with prejudice and some without.
Order - Page 2

It is so ordered this 23rd day of April, 2015.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order - Page 3