Petros v. Boos et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying Pla's Letter 40 Motion to Reopen Case pursuant to the pre-filing injunction previously issued by this Court against the pla. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 4/10/12. (c to pla by certified mail)(mji) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/10/2012: # 1 certified mail receipt) (mji).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MICHAEL J. PETROS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:10CV77
(STAMP)

PAUL BOOS and
CITY OF WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S LETTER MOTION TO REOPEN
I.
The

plaintiff

in

the

Background
above-styled

civil

action

filed

a

complaint, proceeding pro se1 and in forma pauperis,2 against Paul
Boos and the City of Wheeling, West Virginia.

At the time that the

complaint was filed, the plaintiff had brought at least thirteen
civil suits arising from his termination as a sanitation employee
for the City of Wheeling.

This Court granted the defendants’

subsequently filed motion to dismiss, and ultimately awarded the
defendants attorney’s fees and issued a narrowly tailored prefiling injunction which precludes the plaintiff from filing any
further complaints in this United States District Court related to

1

“Pro se” describes a person who represents himself in a court
proceeding without the assistance of a lawyer.
Black’s Law
Dictionary 1341 (9th ed. 2009).
2

“In forma pauperis” describes the permission granted to a poor
person to proceed without liability for court fees or costs.
Black’s Law Dictionary 849 (9th ed. 2009).

his discharge from employment by the City of Wheeling in 1990
before obtaining leave from the undersigned judge.

The United

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed this
Court’s dismissal of the complaint and its issuance of a pre-filing
injunction on March 4, 2011.3
On April 3, 2012, the undersigned judge received, via United
States Postal Service, a letter motion from Michael J. Petros
requesting that this Court reopen the above-styled civil action.4
In support of this motion, Mr. Petros states that he now has proof
of the claims which were the subject of this civil action.

The

undersigned also received an e-mail communication from a Chris
Callaway,5 who purported to write on behalf and in support of Mr.
Petros’ request to reopen his case.
II.

Discussion

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides federal
courts with the power to limit access to the courts by “vexatious
and repetitive litigants.” Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390
F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). This statutory power is tempered by
a party’s constitutional guarantees of due process of law and

3

This pre-filing injunction does not preclude the plaintiff
from filing an action in state court, but it does apply to cases
filed in state court that are removed to this Court.
4

Mr. Petros’ letter motion has been docketed as ECF No. 40.

5

Chris Callaway admits that he is not an attorney and does not
represent Mr. Petros. Mr. Callaway’s letter has been docketed as
ECF No. 41.
2

access to the courts.
F.3d at 817.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Cromer, 390

A pre-filing injunction is a drastic remedy, which

“must be used sparingly.”

Cromer, 390 F.3d at 817.

Prior to

issuing the pre-filing injunction against the plaintiff, this Court
approached the issue “with particular caution,” understanding that
a pre-filing injunction against a pro se plaintiff should “remain
very much the exception to the general rule of free access to the
courts.”

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Furthermore, this

Court believes that it issued an injunction that was “narrowly
tailored to fit the specific circumstances at issue.”

Id. at 818.

After review of the plaintiff’s letter motion, and the e-mail
correspondence received from Chris Callaway, this Court finds that
is must deny the plaintiff’s request to reopen the above-styled
civil

action.

The

plaintiff

has

failed

to

present

any

new

information or evidence not presented before this and/or other
courts in previous cases regarding the plaintiff’s termination from
his employment with the City of Wheeling, nor has his letter or Mr.
Callaway’s correspondence shown any cause why this case should be
reopened at this time.
III.

Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff’s
letter motion to reopen this civil action is hereby DENIED pursuant
to the pre-filing injunction previously issued by this Court
against the plaintiff.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to the pro se plaintiff by certified mail and to
counsel of record herein.
DATED:

April 10, 2012

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4