Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00679/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00679-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY L. HODGE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-cv-679-F

) (WO)

ALABAMA POWER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

After an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE

of the Court that:

1. The objection filed by the plaintiff on August 10, 2005 (Doc. # 7) is overruled.

2. The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge entered on July

27, 2005 (Doc. # 6) is REJECTED in part and ADOPTED in part. The Court

hereby REJECTS the portion of the Recommendation which suggests that the

limitations set forth in Taylor v. State of Alabama, Civil Action No.

2:02cv1068-A, are due to be imposed upon the plaintiff and ADOPTS the

Recommendation in all other respects.

3. Notwithstanding, the plaintiff is hereby ADVISED that the repeated filing of

frivolous claims in this Court is not favored. Initiating and conducting

litigation in this Court pro se without prepayment of filing fees is a privilege.

Although this Court finds that the plaintiff should not be subjected to

Case 2:05-cv-00679-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 08/18/05 Page 1 of 4
1

 In the case Taylor v. State of Alabama, Civil Action No. 2:02-cv-1068-A, the Court

prescribed the following sanctioning limitations on plaintiff Taylor to deter his future filings of

meritless lawsuits as a pro se litigant:

A. Taylor shall submit with any new pro se complaints and amended complaints a

separate pleading caption "Rule 11 Certification," which declares under penalty of

perjury:

(1) I do hereby affirm that, to the best of my knowledge, information,

and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the

circumstances, -- 

(a) the ( ) new complaint ( ) amended complaint submitted

herewith for filing is not presented for any improper purpose,

such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless

increase in the cost of litigation;

(b) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions

asserted in the pleadings submitted herewith for filing

are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous

argument for the extension, modification, or reversal

of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(c) the allegations and other factual contentions

asserted in the pleading submitted herewith for filing

have evidentiary support or, if specifically so

identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after

a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or

discovery.

(2) I have made a diligent effort -- which has included my review of

prior relevant orders of this court -- to determine if sovereign

immunity, absolute immunity, or any similar theory, precludes or

prevents the filing of this complaint or amended complaint against

any of the individuals, governmental institutions, entities, agencies,

departments, representatives, or other governmental actors, I have

designated as defendants.

(3) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct.

limitations on that privilege at this time, it CAUTIONS the plaintiff that

limitations may be imposed upon him in the future if he continues to engage

in frivolous and vexatious litigation. Indeed, in one case, this Court found

limitations to be warranted and thus imposed filing restrictions on a pro se

litigant.1

 The plaintiff is hereby ADVISED that the Court will not

Case 2:05-cv-00679-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 08/18/05 Page 2 of 4
Date: _________________ Plaintiff: ________________________

The Rule 11 Certification shall be dated and signed by Taylor.

4. The Clerk shall establish a method for identifying all new complaints and

amended complaints submitted by Taylor pro se for filing. The Clerk shall examine

each pleading for the requisite Rule 11 Certification and return to Taylor, without

filing, any submission not accompanied by such Certification. After docketing, all

such pleadings properly submitted with a Rule 11 Certification shall be transmitted

to the Chief Magistrate Judge with a routing memorandum which outlines the case

style and case number for (a) any pending complaints by Taylor; (b) all prior

complaints by Taylor along with the date and nature of the order reflecting final

disposition of the complaint in this court.

5. The Chief Magistrate Judge, or a Magistrate Judge designated by him, shall

forthwith review the complaint or amended complaint to ascertain its legal

sufficiency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If the pleading survives such scrutiny,

it shall be returned to the Clerk's office with an appropriate routing memorandum

which directs that it be filed in the usual course. If it is patently clear, however, that

the complaint or amended complaint is due to be dismissed, the Chief Magistrate

Judge, or his designee, shall make a Recommendation to the Chief District Judge that

the following Order be entered:

 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Consistent with the Order entered April 2, 2003 to restrict the

filing of frivolous pro se lawsuits in this Middle District by Zachary

B. Taylor ("Taylor"), the court has duly examined the complaint or

amended complaint, submitted herein by Taylor for filing. In the

considered judgment of the court, the pleading is frivolous or

otherwise lacks merit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and should not

be permitted to proceed.

Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE

of this court that the complaint/amended complaint be DISMISSED

( ) with prejudice ( ) without prejudice, prior to the service of

process, and without any further review, or proceedings thereon.

The Chief Magistrate Judge, or his designee, shall also consider whether greater

sanctions should then be imposed to deter Taylor from further frivolous or baseless

filings in this court, including, but not limited to, contempt of court with the

possibility of fine or imprisonment or both, and prohibiting any further filings until

all costs, fines, and monetary sanctions previously imposed on Taylor in all other

civil cases filed by him in this court have been paid (See Support Systems

International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995)), and include

recommendations in that regard.

Id., Doc. # 45.

hesitate to impose such restrictions on him in the future, if necessary.

Case 2:05-cv-00679-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 08/18/05 Page 3 of 4
4. The claims in this case are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).

A separate judgment shall be entered.

DONE this 18th day of August, 2005.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00679-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 08/18/05 Page 4 of 4