Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02996/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02996-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

BLD-151 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2996

___________

ROY A. DAY,

Appellant

v.

WILLIAM (BILL) LOUCKS; ANTHONY J. DESANTIS; 

21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil No. 1-15-cv-00541)

District Judge: Honorable Leonard P. Stark

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 19, 2016

Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: March 4, 2016)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2996 Document: 003112224331 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2016
2

Pro se appellant Roy Day appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his 

complaint as barred by an order enjoining him from filing a complaint without prior 

Court authorization. Because Day has no arguable legal basis on which to appeal the 

District Court’s judgment, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Day “has a history of vexatious and abusive litigation.” Day v. Toner, 549 F. 

App’x 66, 67 (3d Cir. 2014). This led the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of Florida to impose sanctions of $4,000 and enjoin Day from filing any lawsuits 

until he paid those sanctions. In re Roy Day Litig., No. 95-143-MISC-J, 2011 WL 

550207, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2011). 

Rather than paying that sanction, Day, a resident of Florida, began to file actions 

in the District of Delaware. Among other suits, he filed a complaint against 21st Century 

Centennial Insurance Company and one of its executives, alleging that they had violated 

his rights in handling a claim concerning a 2010 car accident. See D. Del. Civ. A. No. 

12-cv-1096. The District Court concluded that it would be more convenient for the 

parties to litigate the action in the Middle District of Florida and transferred the case to 

that Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Middle District of Florida then dismissed the 

complaint because Day had not paid the $4,000 necessary to lift the filing injunction. See

M.D. Fla. Civ. A. No. 14-cv-2048.

Day continued to file complaints in the District of Delaware. Eventually, the 

Court issued its own filing injunction, barring Day from filing, without Court approval, 

Case: 15-2996 Document: 003112224331 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2016
3

any action in that Court “in an effort to avoid the sanctions imposed upon him by the 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.” D. Del. Civ. A. No. 12-

cv-1715. Day appealed that order to this Court, and we affirmed. See Day, 549 F. App’x 

at 67.

Nevertheless, without seeking preauthorization, Day then filed another complaint 

in the District of Delaware that again alleged that 21st Century and its executives had 

mishandled his insurance claim. The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding 

that it contained “precisely the type of allegations that Day has been enjoined from 

bringing without first seeking leave.” D.C. Op. at 3. Day filed a timely notice of appeal 

to this Court. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review an order dismissing a 

case for failing to comply with a court order for abuse of discretion, see Emerson v. Thiel 

Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002); In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 

2000), and we grant “great deference . . . to a district court’s interpretation of its own 

order,” WRS, Inc. v. Plaza Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 424, 428 (3d Cir. 2005). 

We have previously upheld the validity of the District Court’s filing injunction. 

The complaint that Day filed in this case falls squarely within the terms of that 

injunction: Day refiled in the District of Delaware a complaint that the Middle District of 

Florida had dismissed due to Day’s failure to pay the sanction. Thus, the District Court 

did not err in concluding that Day had filed the complaint in the District of Delaware “in 

an effort to avoid the sanctions imposed upon him by the United States District Court for 

Case: 15-2996 Document: 003112224331 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/04/2016
4

the Middle District of Florida,” and that, since Day had not obtained preapproval, the 

complaint was consequently barred by the filing injunction.1

Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

 

1 Further, in light of this ruling, the District Court did not err in denying Day’s other 

motions.

Case: 15-2996 Document: 003112224331 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/04/2016