Nails does not disclose in her in forma pauperis applicationsthe nature of her disability, but 1

her written submissions in each case raise reasonable doubts about her mental stability.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 1:06-CV-00760-WKW-DRB

)

CITY OF DOTHAN, ) [wo]

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Filed herewith is an ORDER granting Angela Denise Nails (“Nails) in forma pauperis

status to file this purported action on August 24, 2006, without prepayment of fees or costs,

but staying service of the Complaint. Because the purported Complaint is so patently

frivolous and reflects this plaintiff’s inexcusable abuse of the judicial process, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that it be dismissed with prejudice, without any opportunity for

amendment and prior to service of process. 

I. VEXATIOUS LAWSUITS

On March 17, 2006, Nails, an unemployed disabled indigent who resides in Dothan ,

1

filed seven separate lawsuits in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915:

1:06-cv-00246-MEF-VPM Nails v. Preston et al filed 03/17/06 closed 04/07/06

1:06-cv-00247-WKW-DRB Nails v. East Gate Inn filed 03/17/06 closed 05/01/06

1:06-cv-00249-MEF-VPM Nails v. Dothan Rescue Mission filed 03/17/06 closed 04/07/06

Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 8
2

1:06-cv-00250-MEF-SRW Nails v. Beavers filed 03/17/06 closed 04/17/06

1:06-cv-00251-MHT-DRB Nails v. Jones filed 03/17/06 closed 04/28/06

1:06-cv-00252-MHT-CSC Nails v. Centurytel Phone Co. filed 03/17/06 closed 05/25/06

1:06-cv-00253-MEF-VPM Nails v. Compass Bank Dothan filed 03/17/06 closed 05/09/06

In recommending the dismissal of case no. 1:06-cv-00247-WKW-DRB , Nails v. East

Gate Inn, after providing Nails an opportunity to amend her complaint, this Magistrate Judge

documented, as follows, these complaints , which “charg[ed] a variety of defendants with

spurious claims most frequently seen in state court litigation”:

•Case no. 1:06-cv-00246-MEF-VPM

Nails v. Eugene Preston and Pauline Preston

negligence action arising from auto accident, or some other event, occurring

in January 2003; dismissed without prejudice on 4/7/06 for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction

•Case no. 1:06-cv-00249-MEF-VPM

Nails v. Dothan Rescue Mission

damages claimed for defendant’s alleged failure to provide assistance or

service on unspecified date; dismissed without prejudice on 4/7/06 for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction

•Case no. 1:06-cv-00250-MEF-SRW

Nails v. Ruby Beavers

purported discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act arising from

defendant’s alleged failure to address complaints of harassment on unspecified

dates by other tenants in an Aliceville, AL apartment complex; dismissed

without prejudice on 4/17/06 for improper venue

•Case no. 1:06-cv-00251-MHT-DRB 

Nail v. Al Jones

claim against an attorney for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, on

some unspecified date and in a manner not described, in alleged violation of

Rule 1.14 of the Ala. Professional Code of Conduct 

Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 8
3

•Case no. 1:06-cv-00252-MHT-CSC

Nails v. Centurytel Phone Company

negligence complaint arising from defendant’s alleged failure to follow

telephone regulations, rules, and guidelines in connection with “fraudulent”

charges and interruption of phone service 

•Case no. 1:06-cv-00253-MEF-VPM

Nails v. Compass Bank Dothan

April 12, 2006 Recommendation for dismissal without prejudice for lack of

jurisdiction of an amended complaint purporting to state negligence claims

arising from closure of accounts of deposit 

Apparently undeterred by the notice provided in each case regarding the limited

jurisdiction of federal courts, the glaring deficiencies of her lawsuit, and penalties for abusing

the privilege of proceeding without paying filing fees and costs, Nails ended her brief hiatus

in August with the filing of this lawsuit along with Nails v. Dothan Rescue Mission,(case no.

1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW, filed 08/16/06).

II. PRESENT COMPLAINT

The undated Complaint – neither sworn nor notarized – is reproduced here verbatim

and without editing errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE COUNTY OF MONGEMERY

THE STATE OF ALABAMA

COMPLAINT OF NEGLIGENCE

The case follows under the Jurisdiction Actitcel III Section 2a Constitutional law. Subject

Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 8
4

matter question controversy of $10,000.00 dollars. The City of Dothan has not appropriately

responded to the complaint in writing of the City having no sidewalks on Virginia street were the

plaintiff was struck by a vehicle. The plaintiff has responded to the City request of procedures to

speak with the City representative the Mayor, no settlement or response was made after the plaintiff

and the City Mayor discussion The plaintiff is bring the civil case before the court searching for the

due process rights of the court.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. DISCUSSION

Irrespective of its procedural defects, this Complaint so clearly lacks jurisdictional

substance that this court’s scarce judicial resources should not be burdened. Neither federal

question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction is invoked; nothing alleged can be construed

reasonably to implicate any right or privilege secured by federal law or the Constitution, and

there is neither diverse citizenship nor the requisite amount of controversy even if a cause of

action could be discerned. Nor can this court’s federal question jurisdiction be invoked

through an amendment grounded on the essence of this plaintiff’s grievance – that “the City

of Dothan has not appropriately responded to the complaint in writing of the City having no

sidewalks on Virginia street were the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle.” The complaint clearly

lacks any arguable basis in law and fact. In sum, this is a frivolous action which should not

burden the court or an Alabama municipality dependent on taxpayers’ support.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) and (iii), the court shall dismiss a case

Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 4 of 8
5

by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis at any time if it determines that the complaint is

frivolous or malicious OR fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted OR seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. At any stage of the

proceedings, a case is frivolous for the purpose of § 1915(e)(2)(B) when it appears that the

plaintiff “has little or no chance of success.” See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992);

Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11 Cir. 1993). A district court may conclude that a case

th

has little or no chance of success and dismiss the complaint before service of process when it

determines from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are “clearly baseless” or

that the legal theories are “indisputably meritless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327

(1989); Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33.

 Nails is advised, as this court has consistently reminded similarly situated pro se

litigants, that the privilege of filing a federal court lawsuit without prepayment of filing fees

properly acknowledges a “right of access to courts” which is constitutionally secured for all

American citizens. The privilege is subject, however, to valid and reasonable limitations

designed not only to conserve limited judicial resources but also to prevent abuse by

unlearned laymen who may be tempted to seize the privilege as a license for limitless or misguided forays into federal court with bootless claims and grievances unresolved in other forums

or for which there simply is no remedy. Frivolous or malicious lawsuits duties against any

defendants – corporate, public, institutional, or individual – automatically result in

inconveniences, burdens, and costs, associated with defense even to the extent of securing

Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 5 of 8
6

dismissal from the action.

This court also deems it appropriate now to advise Nails that pro se litigants are also

bound to honor Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in

pertinent part at Rule 11(b):

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating)

a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is

certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed

after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

 (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause

unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein 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;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if

specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable

opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

A plaintiff may incur a substantial penalty for non-compliance with this rule by filing

a federal court lawsuit without first conducting “an inquiry reasonable under the

circumstances” in order to inform his “knowledge, information, and belief” about the merits

of the lawsuit. Rule 11(c)(2) provides:

A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient

to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly

situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction

may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay

Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 6 of 8
7

a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective

deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the

reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the

violation.

IV. CONCLUSION

Because the complaint fails to state any cognizable claim for relief in this court, and is

patently frivolous, it is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that this action be

dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff file any objections to the this

Recommendation not later than September 21, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is

objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District

Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and,

therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking

on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the District Court

except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also

Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 7 of 8
8

Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding

precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of

business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 6 day of September, 2006. th

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 8 of 8