Clark v. Mangham

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: July 25, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00770
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION

LARRY E CLARK ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-770

VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS

MANGHAM ET AL MAG. JUDGE MCCLUSKY

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This case is frivolous, and otherwise barred by res judicata.1 Worse, this case represents the latest in a scourge of actions filed by the plaintiff in both state and federal court, amounting to a massive collective waste of judicial resources.2 Following the command of the Fifth Circuit,3 and refusing to tolerate this abuse of the legal system,4 IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1 See Simmons v. Payne, 170 F. App'x 906 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974)). 2 See, e.g., JUDGMENT, Clark v. Land, et al., No. 97-CV-1266, R. Doc. 183, (E.D. La. Mar. 13, 2001); see also Clark v. Mangham, et. al., No. 98-0217, slip op. at 1 (W.D. La. Oct. 5, 1998) (Payne, M.J.) (“This is a case about a man, Larry Clark, who is disgruntled with a state court decision and refuses to accept its finality.”); L&M Products, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 29,998 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/10/97), 704 So. 2d 415, 416 (affirming dismissal as a sanction against Clark for refusal to comply with court orders, stating: “After years of unfruitful legal proceedings in this expropriation matter, the lower court dismissed with prejudice all claims remaining for plaintiff and intervenor. Finding no abuse in the trial judge's discretion, we affirm.”); Clark v. Edwards, No. 21-CV-177, 2022 WL 193741 (M.D. La. Jan. 3, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 21-CV-177, 2022 WL 188144 (M.D. La. Jan. 20, 2022), appeal dismissed, No. 22-30530, 2022 WL 18673911 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2022). 3 Clark v. Land, 00-30660, Doc. No. 53 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2001) (Where the Fifth Circuit, in prohibiting Mr. Clark from filing any further pleadings related to this litigation, stated “[t]his is the latest in a long line of appellant’s contumacious prolongations of this dispute. The claims [Clark] continues to advance are wholly without legal merit, . . . . and, because of appellant’s blatant disregard of our warning [about additional frivolous appeals], we impose sanctions, prohibiting Clark from future filings and awarding to appellees reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”). 4 See, e.g., Cordova v. Louisiana State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 6:19-CV- 01027, 2024 WL 150290, at *2 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024) (holding that “repeatedly urging [] frivolous [legal] arguments” is grounds for sanctions, and that district courts should not “waste [their] time” on litigants “attempt[ing] to resurrect” issues that have been rejected by the Fifth Circuit previously.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion that may be pending in this case is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. A judgment consistent with this Order will be issued in due course. THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 25th day of July, 2024.

Carmo UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE