IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20745

Summary Calendar

 

JEFFREY BALAWAJDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

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

December 2, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and JONES, Circuit Judges.

HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

Texas state prisoner Jeffrey Balawajder, #520106, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

as improvidently filed. He challenges the transfer of his case

to the Southern District of Texas and argues that the district

court abused its discretion by applying its policy of enforcing

sanctions imposed by other Texas federal district courts. We

AFFIRM.

Balawajder filed a 101-page pro se civil rights suit against

twenty-one defendants alleging interference with his religious
No. 97-20745

-2-

practices and denial of access to the courts. The complaint was

originally filed in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas. The district court referred the

complaint to the magistrate judge who ordered the lawsuit

transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 & 1406 to the Southern

District of Texas because Balawajder’s claims involved events

that took place at the Ellis I Unit, which is located in Walker

County in the Southern District of Texas. The order also noted

that Balawajder “has been warned and sanctioned many times” and

“has the experience to know where his lawsuits are to be filed.” 

Accordingly, the order also warned Balawajder that “sanctions may

be imposed if he files any new lawsuits in this Court when there

is no basis for this Court having venue over the matter.” 

The district court for the Southern District of Texas

entered an order dismissing Balawajder’s action, without

prejudice, as improvidently filed. In dismissing the lawsuit,

the district court pointed to Balawajder’s involvement in other

frivolous lawsuits. The court noted that in 1992 this court had

ordered that a sanction of $50 be imposed against Balawajder for

filing a frivolous appeal and that Balawajder had not paid this

sanction. The court further noted that the district court for

the Western District of Texas had dismissed a suit of

Balawajder’s, with prejudice, for contumacious conduct and had

ordered the district court clerk not to accept any further

pleadings from Balawajder without prior approval of a judge or
No. 97-20745

-3-

magistrate judge. Applying a Policy Statement implemented by the

Southern District on February 1, 1994, which adopted a policy of

enforcing sanction orders imposed by other Texas federal district

courts, and “[a]fter reviewing the pleadings filed by Balawajder

and in light of the sanctions imposed by [this court],” the

district court determined “that Balawajder should not be granted

permission to proceed with his civil rights action.” The court

dismissed the action, without prejudice, as improvidently filed. 

Balawajder filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking

relief from final judgment. The magistrate judge issued an

amended memorandum and recommendation that Balawajder’s motion

for relief from final judgment, and other motions, be denied. 

The magistrate judge noted that although Balawajder had, in fact,

paid the $50 sanction imposed by this court, said error on the

part of the district court was harmless and payment of the fine

“does not alleviate the stigma of that sanction.” The district

court entered a memorandum and order adopting the magistrate

judge’s amended recommendation over Balawajder’s objections and

ordering that the action be dismissed with prejudice. Balawajder

filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Balawajder first challenges the transfer of his case to the

Southern District of Texas. A district court has the authority

to transfer a case in the interest of justice to another district

in which the action might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404,

1406. Section 1404 provides in pertinent part:
No. 97-20745

-4-

For the convenience of parties and witnesses,

in the interest of justice, a district court

may transfer any civil action to any other

district or division where it might have been

brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “The district court has broad discretion in

deciding whether to order a transfer.” Caldwell v. Palmetto

State Sav. Bank, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987). The

magistrate judge transferred the case because Balawajder’s claims 

arose out of events that had occurred at the Ellis I Unit, which

is located in Walker County in the Southern District of Texas,

Houston Division. No abuse of discretion has been shown. 

Balawajder’s challenge to the district court’s dismissal of

his case based on the Southern District’s policy of enforcing

sanctions imposed by other Texas federal district courts is also

unavailing. We review sanctions imposed upon vexatious or

harassing litigants by the district court for an abuse of

discretion. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.

1993). We have affirmed a district court’s sanction barring a

litigant from filing future civil rights complaints without the

prior consent of a district court or magistrate judge. Murphy v.

Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1994). Hitherto, we have not

addressed, in a published opinion, the propriety of one district

court enforcing a sanction order of another district court

pursuant to a local order. We have, however, considered this

issue in several unpublished opinions. In Clark v. United

States, No. 94-10899, slip op. at 2-3 (5th Cir. Apr. 4,
No. 97-20745

-5-

1995)(precedential unpublished opinion), the district court for

the Northern District of Texas dismissed the plaintiff’s case

because he had not paid a $50 sanction imposed by the district

court for the Southern District of Texas in a previous frivolous

civil rights action. This court affirmed the Northern District’s

application of “Miscellaneous Order No. 48, which permits `each

federal district court in Texas [to] honor the sanctions imposed

by another federal court in Texas.’” Id. at 2. In Murphy v.

Scott, No. 94-41355, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. May 22,

1995)(precedential unpublished opinion), this court upheld a

similar order authorizing the Eastern District to honor sanctions

imposed against pro se prisoners by other federal district

courts. Furthermore, in Umar v. McVea, No. 95-20890, slip op. at

1 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 1996)(nonprecedential unpublished opinion),

this court affirmed the Southern District’s policy of enforcing

sanctions imposed by other Texas federal district courts. 

As we have previously noted, Balawajder has a long history

of involvement in frivolous litigation. See Balawajder v.

Parker, Nos. 94-50605 & 94-50666, slip op. at 5 n.2 (5th Cir. May

24, 1995)(precedential unpublished opinion). Had Balawajder been

proceeding in this case in forma pauperis, he would have been

barred by the three strikes rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Accordingly, the district court for the Southern District of

Texas did not abuse its discretion in honoring the sanction order

of the Western District of Texas and dismissing Balawajder’s
No. 97-20745

-6-

complaint. 

AFFIRMED.