You're viewing Docket Item 44 from the case Willrich v. United States of America et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 3:13-cv-03116-P-BH Document 44 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID 301

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CANDACE WILLRICH,

Plaintiff,

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,

Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

NO. 13-CV-3116-P

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 9, 2013, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and Recom-

mendation (“FCR”) in which she recommended that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and warn Plaintiff that she may be subject to sanctions should

she continue to abuse the litigation process by filing frivolous cases or disregarding court orders.

On August 15, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a second FCR (“FCR 2”) in which she recom-

mended that the Court deny a motion for temporary restraining order (doc. 8) that Plaintiff had filed

after the recommended dismissal of this case. On August 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a

third FCR (“FCR 3”) in which she recommended that the Court deny a second motion for temporary

restraining order (doc. 11). Following FCR 3, Plaintiff has inundated the Court with various

motions, including two motions to strike recommendations (docs. 22 and 32) that might be construed

as objections to the initial FCR. Plaintiff also timely filed specific objections to that FCR. (See

Obj’ns to FCR [hereinafter Obj’ns], doc. 42.) Plaintiff has filed no objection against either FCR 2

or FCR 3.

The Court first considers whether it should strike the initial FCR as requested in two motions

Case 3:13-cv-03116-P-BH Document 44 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 302

filed by Plaintiff. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), Plaintiff urges the Court to strike the FCR. She

also urges the Court to find 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) unconstitutional. But it is not unconstitutional

to screen a pauper’s complaint under § 1915(e)(2). See Farese v. Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223, 1227 n.5

(11th Cir. 2003); Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2001); Benavides

v. Pursley, 68 F.3d 471, 1995 WL 581918, at*1 (5th Cir. Sept. 25, 1995) (per curiam) (addressing

predecessor to § 1915(e)(2)); Jordan v. Sneed, 26 F.3d 1119, 1994 WL 286274, at *1 (5th Cir. June

24, 1994) (per curiam) (same). And Rule 12(f) provides no basis to strike any court order or

recommendation. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the First Motion for Leave to Strike Magistrate

Judge Irma Ramirez’s Findings, Conclusions, Recommendation with Sanctions (doc. 22) and the

Second Motion for Leave to Strike Magistrate Judge Irma Ramirez’s Findings, Conclusions,

Recommendation with Sanctions (doc. 32).

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including each issued FCR, the two

motions to strike, and the filed objections, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(3), the Court finds that each FCR is correct. It has conducted a de novo review and deter-

mination as to the issues to which Plaintiff has specifically objected. Having reviewed the remainder

of the FCRs for clear error, it is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. The

Court hereby accepts the three FCRs as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly,

it DENIES the Motion for Leave for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction Hearing,

and Permanent Injunction (doc. 8) and the Second Motion for Leave for Temporary Restraining

Order, Preliminary Injunction Hearing, and Permanent Injunction (doc. 11) filed by Plaintiff. And

it summarily DISMISSES this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It also WARNS Plaintiff

that the Court may impose sanctions, including monetary sanctions payable to the Court and filing

2

Case 3:13-cv-03116-P-BH Document 44 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 303

restrictions, for filing a frivolous lawsuit or otherwise abusing the litigation process.1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the Court hereby pros-

pectively certifies that any appeal in this action would not be taken in good faith. In support of this

certification, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Findings, Conclusions, and Recom-

mendation issued on August 9, 2013. Based on that FCR, the Court finds that any appeal would

present no legal points of arguable merit and would therefore be frivolous. Plaintiff may challenge

this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Clerk

of Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th

Cir. 1997); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2013.

_________________________________
JORGE A. SOLIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1The Court notes that, after the issuance of the initial FCR in this case, Judge Lynn accepted an FCR in a
different case and barred Plaintiff from filing future actions in forma pauperis in this Court without first obtaining leave
of court. See Willrich v. United States, No. 3:13-CV-2670-M-BK, unpub. order (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2013). The warn-
ing issued in this case supplements the filing restriction imposed in that case. Plaintiff is hereby on notice that should
she continue to abuse the litigation process, the Court may monetarily sanction her and/or impose more severe filing
restrictions. Multiple unnecessary, meritless, or frivolous filings may constitute an abuse of the litigation process.

3