Tepe v. Corker

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:23-cv-000423-RJC-DCK

MAWULE TEPE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CLIFTON L. CORKER, et al., ) ORDER ) Defendants. ) ) )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Challenge the Validity of Orders and Judgments Issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, (Doc. No. 138), filed on April 25, 2024.1 On April 30, 2024, Defendants filed their Response (Doc. No. 139). After numerous frivolous filings by the Plaintiff, on December 15, 2023, the Court warned Plaintiff about his improper litigation tactics and provided Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause as to why a pre-filing review system should not be imposed. (Doc. No. 115). Plaintiff responded by continuing to assert frivolous claims. (Doc. No. 121). Accordingly, on January 18, 2024, this Court entered an order imposing a prefiling review system for all of Plaintiff’s future filings. (Doc. No. 132). The Court explained that “all documents submitted by the Plaintiff in the future will be pre- screened by the Court for content. Any proposed filings that are not made in good

1 Plaintiff’s Motion, (Doc. No. 138), was docketed prematurely before pre-filing review was completed. faith or which lack substance or merit will be returned to the Plaintiff without further explanation.” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court, on its own motion, to

“strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “Outside the scope of Rule 12(f), a district court has inherent power, in appropriate circumstances, ‘to strike items from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct.’” Thomas v. Meyer, No. 1:21CV1428 (AJT/JFA), 2023 WL 2088416, at *6 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2023) (first quoting Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010); and then citing Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 138, 150 (4th Cir. 2009)).

Plaintiff has persisted in lodging frivolous claims in his numerous filings before this Court. Plaintiff’s latest motion, (Doc. No. 138), is no exception. Consistent with the Court’s Order of January 18, 2024, (Doc. No. 132), and the Court’s inherent authority to strike items from the docket, Plaintiff’s improper filing is stricken from the docket and his motion is denied. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion, (Doc. No. 138), is

STRICKEN consistent with this Court’s Order imposing a prefiling review system. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. The pre-filing review system will remain in place, and all documents submitted by the Plaintiff in the future, whether in this case or in any other action filed in this District, will be pre-screened by the Court for content. Any proposed filings that are not made in good faith or which lack substance or merit will be returned to the Plaintiff without further explanation. Signed: May 2, 2024

Robert J. Conrad, Jr. eed, United States District Judge