1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PETER BEASLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT

GREGORY GREENLEE et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court in this pro se civil action brought by Plaintiff Peter Beasley 

is Defendants Blacks in Technology Foundation and Blacks in Technology, LLC’s 

(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. (ECF 

No. 53). By their Motion, Defendants request the Court order Beasley to post 

security for their reasonable expenses incurred in defending this action. Id. For the 

following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

The Court possesses the inherent power to protect the efficient and orderly 

administration of justice and to command respect for the Court’s orders, 

judgments, procedures, and authority. In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 

1993). Included in this inherent power is the power to levy sanctions in response 

to abusive litigation practices. Id. Sanctions may be appropriate when a pro se

litigant has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; 

Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir. 1993). Pro se litigants have 

“no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, 

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 71 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1296
2

and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 

808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). 

Defendants contend that Beasley has “a decades-long history of filing pro se

actions” and that Beasley filed this suit in federal court to harass Defendants and 

avoid an adverse ruling in state court. Defs.’ Br. 1, 6. (ECF No. 54). Defendants note 

that the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas declared Beasley a

vexatious litigant in 2018. Id. at 3. The Court also takes judicial notice of the state 

court’s decision to sanction Beasley as a vexatious litigant, see Fed. R. Evid. 201, 

and also of the District Judge’s comments in a related case, Blacks in Tech. Int’l v. 

Blacks in Tech. LLC, et al., Cause No. 3:20-CV03008, finding that Beasley 

employed “vexatious litigation tactics” in that case, including filing “a slew of 

motions” and harassing his adversaries by seeking to disqualify opposing counsel.

Blacks in Tech. Int’l, 2022 WL 1689310, at *2, 7 (N.D. Tex. May 26, 2022), 

reconsideration denied, 2022 WL 3974987 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2022). 

However, the Court observes that the District Judge did not declare Beasley 

a vexatious litigant as a result of his conduct in the related case and did not impose 

any pre-filing injunction as a sanction. Indeed, the District Judge did not impose 

any lesser sanction on Beasley. And on the record in this case, the Court declines 

to find that Beasley has engaged in abusive litigation practices or so multiplied the 

proceedings in bad faith that harsh sanctions are warranted at this juncture. He 

has not yet met the high threshold necessary to warrant the sanctions requested.

See Crain v. Credit Prot. Ass’n, 2010 WL 2976127, at *5–6 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 71 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1297
3

2010) (Ramirez, J.), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 2976120 

(N.D. Tex. July 28, 2010) (Fitzwater, J.) (“The imposition of sanctions using 

inherent powers must be accompanied by a specific finding of bad faith...the 

standard for imposing sanctions is very high—the court must find that the very 

temple of justice has been defiled by the sanctioned party’s conduct.”) (cleaned 

up); Lander v. JPMorgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2022 WL 819213 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 

21, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 813810 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 

16, 2022) (distinguishing Plaintiffs actions from three unrelated cases where 

litigants who filed 23, 18, and 13 lawsuits respectively based on the same set of fact 

were declared vexatious); Crear v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 491 F. Supp. 3d 

207, 219 (N.D. Tex. 2020) (finding that sanctions were unwarranted after a pro se

plaintiff filed six lawsuits challenging foreclosure because the plaintiff had not 

previously been warned and the defendant’s claims lacked merit). Accordingly, 

Defendants’ Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant is DENIED.

Despite their suggestion that Beasley’s live pleading fails to state a claim, 

Defendants have not filed any motion to dismiss.1 Thus, it does not appear that 

Defendants have availed themselves of all the procedural vehicles at their disposal 

to terminate this proceeding and save litigation expenses.

1 A Rule 12(b) motion must be filed before responsive pleadings are filed; a motion 

to dismiss for failure to state a claim that is filed after an answer is untimely. Jones 

v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999). Rule 12(c) motions, however, may 

be filed after the pleadings are closed. Id.

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 71 Filed 12/05/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1298
4

SO ORDERED.

December 5, 2022.

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 71 Filed 12/05/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1299