# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 07/22/2021No. 19

- 40914

2 participated in that conduct during, or subsequent to, the divorce. T he
district court ruled some of her claims were time

- barred, others barred by prosecutorial and sovereign immu nity, 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 impos ed 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 , contend ing : 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 pre

filing injunction will deprive her of a federal remedy, which, she asserts , may only be vindicated in federal court. A pre

- filing injunction is rev iewed for
abuse of discretion. Newby v. Enron Corp. , 302 F.3d 295, 30 1 (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, 18 7 (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 ; i t does not apply to current or pending matters, but only future cases; and Bowling may still file any otherwise

- prohibited matter upon obtain ing 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. Ou r court lacks jurisdiction to Case: 19-40914 Document: 00515948059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2021No. 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