United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-40914

Summary Calendar

Wanda L. Bowling, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Greg Willis, in his Official and Individual Capacity, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-610

Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Wanda L. Bowling filed this action against her former spouse and eight 

other individuals, including Greg Willis, for federal claims related to her 

ongoing divorce proceedings in Texas state court. She asserted her former 

spouse misappropriated her assets and the other named defendants 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 22, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40914 Document: 00515948059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
No. 19-40914

2

participated in that conduct during, or subsequent to, the divorce. The 

district court ruled some of her claims were time-barred, others barred by 

prosecutorial and sovereign immunity, and others lacking a plausible basis for 

relief. 

Willis moved for sanctions against Bowling and a declaration she was 

a vexatious litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The court agreed, and 

imposed a pre-filing injunction, prohibiting Bowling from filing further 

claims without leave of court.

Proceeding pro se, Bowling contests the injunction through an 

interlocutory appeal, contending: the court abused its discretion in declaring 

her to be a vexatious litigant; the scope of the injunction is overbroad; there 

is no real and immediate threat of future injury; and maintenance of the prefiling injunction will deprive her of a federal remedy, which, she asserts, may 

only be vindicated in federal court. A pre-filing injunction is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 2002). 

District courts have inherent power to impose pre-filing injunctions 

“to deter vexatious, abusive, and harassing litigation”. Baum v. Blue Moon 

Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 2008). The injunction “must be 

tailored to protect the courts and innocent parties, while preserving the 

legitimate rights of litigants”. Id. (citation omitted). The injunction 

prohibits Bowling removing her state-court divorce proceeding to federal 

court or filing any civil action related to the divorce; it does not apply to 

current or pending matters, but only future cases; and Bowling may still file 

any otherwise-prohibited matter upon obtaining leave of court pursuant to 

the injunction. She has not shown the court abused its discretion.

Bowling also claims the court erred by: striking her first amended 

complaint; granting four defendants’ motions to dismiss; and failing to 

consider her second amended complaint. Our court lacks jurisdiction to 

Case: 19-40914 Document: 00515948059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
No. 19-40914

3

consider these issues because they are not interlocutory orders. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

Case: 19-40914 Document: 00515948059 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2021