Mathis v. Dept. of Justice Center ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EVONNA MATHIS, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-711 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CENTER, and UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants. ____________________________/ ORDER This is a civil action filed by a pro se litigant. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) on August 13, 2020, recommending thatPlaintiff’sComplaintbedismissedwithprejudiceforfailuretostateaclaim andthattheCourt assessthe$505.00appellatefilingfee. OnAugust31,2020,Plaintifffileda FirstAmendedComplaint (ECF No. 10). On September 17, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) recommending that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; the motion to seal (ECF No. 11) be dismissed as moot; Plaintiff’s Complaints in Case Nos. 1:20-cv-837, 1:20-cv-838, 1:20-cv-866 and 1:20-cv-867be dismissed with prejudice;the Court consider limitingor precluding Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis in any future case in this Court; and that the Court assess the $505.00 appellate filingfee. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on Plaintiff.1 No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having considered the submissions in these cases, the Court concludes that continuing to allow Plaintiff the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in future lawsuits does not promote the use of Court resources in the interest of justice. See generally In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989); Maxberry v. S.E.C., 879 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1989). The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that a district court may properly deny a vexatious litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis where a litigant has demonstrated a “history of unsubstantial and vexatious litigation [amounting to] an abuse of the permission granted to him to proceed as a pauper in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” Atchison v. Farrell, 230 F.3d 1357, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 15, 2000) (quoting Maxberry, 879 F.2d at 224). See, e.g., Boles v. Matthews, 173 F.3d 854, at *3 (6th Cir. 1999); Robinson v. Giavasis, 110 F.3d 64 (6th Cir. 1997); Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 260-61 (6th Cir. 1992). As set forth more fully in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has a demonstrated history of filing unsubstantial and vexatious litigation, justifying this prospective restriction. Accordingly, in the future, Plaintiff will not be permitted to file another action without payment of the full filing fee. Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, and Plaintiff’s First Amended 1Plaintiff is the only party that has appeared in thiscase at this time. Complaint (ECF No. 10) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE forthe reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to seal case (ECF No. 11) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffis PROHIBITED from filing another action in this Court without payment of the full filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith. AJudgment will be entered consistent with this Order. Dated: October 7, 2020 /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge