Summary
This United States District Court order dismisses a pro se prisoner’s § 1983 lawsuit against Smith County and others as frivolous and improperly filed. The court enforces a prior prefiling injunction that requires all future filings to be signed by a licensed attorney, noting the plaintiff attempted to evade this sanction by filing in another district. Additionally, the court imposes a $100 monetary sanction for the plaintiff's continued abuse of the judicial process and orders deductions from his inmate trust fund to satisfy the penalty.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and improperly filed because it was not signed by an attorney as required by the court's prior filing sanction.
- Whether an additional monetary sanction should be imposed on Hicks for continued abuse of the judicial process.
- Whether Hicks's objections to the magistrate judge's report warranted relief.
Holdings
- The action was properly dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and improperly filed because Hicks filed it without the attorney signature required by the court's prior sanction.
- The court could impose a $100 monetary sanction because Hicks had continued filing plainly frivolous and abusive actions despite prior restrictions and warnings, and the additional sanction was necessary to deter further misconduct.
- The objections did not warrant relief because they failed to address the merits of the magistrate judge's report and instead largely consisted of irrelevant accusations.
Key quotations
“the sanctioning court must use the least restrictive sanction necessary to deter the inappropriate behavior.” (at 2)
“Federal courts have those inherent powers “deemed necessary to protect the efficient and orderly administration of justice and those necessary to command respect for the court’s orders, judgments, procedures, and authority.”” (at 2)
“Though a prefiling injunction is “the most stringent sanction” that courts may impose upon abusive litigants” (at 2)
“Plaintiff Larry Hicks (TDCJ No. 02270069) is hereby sanctioned in the amount of $100.00 for his continued abuse of the judicial process.” (at 2)
Factual background
Larry Hicks, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner proceeding pro se, alleged that Smith County, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the President of the United States had attempted to murder him and sought radiation testing based on an alleged exposure to a “baby grey alien clone.” Hicks had filed numerous prior lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas, many of which were dismissed, including several as frivolous. A prior order barred the clerk from accepting Hicks's filings unless they were signed by a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas, and Hicks filed this action in South Carolina in an apparent attempt to evade that sanction.
Procedural history
Hicks filed the action pro se in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, which transferred it to the Eastern District of Texas. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who recommended dismissal as frivolous and improperly filed and recommended a $100 sanction. After Hicks objected, the district court reviewed the report and objections de novo, overruled the objections, adopted the recommendations, dismissed the case with prejudice, and imposed the monetary sanction.