Mathis v. United States Marshal Service

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EVONNA MATHIS, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-866 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTMASTER GENERAL, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 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. 7) on September 17, 2020, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;Plaintiff’s Complaints in Case Nos. 1:20-cv-711,1:20-cv-837, 1:20-cv-838, and 1:20-cv-867be dismissed with prejudice; the Court consider limiting or precluding Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis in any futurecaseinthis Court;andthat theCourt assessthe$505.00appellatefilingfee. 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 1Plaintiff is the only party that has appeared in thiscase at this time. 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. 7) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.

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. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Order.

Dated: October 7, 2020 /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge