FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 33 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 2- cv -6 08 21 -WPD MACKIE L. SHIVERS, J R., Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Mac ki e Sh iv ers , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t

co urt’s o rd er i m

po si ng san ct io ns . He arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n d et erm in in g t ha t h e is a ve xa ti ou s l it ig an t an d i n p ro sp ect iv el y de nyin g h im in fo rma pa up er is (“ IFP” ) st atus forcert ai n p os t-c on vi ct io n c la im s. Fo r th e rea so ns setforthbe lo w, we affi rm . I. Sh iv ers , who is servi ng a li fe s en te nc e fo r po ss es si on an d c on sp ira cy to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne , fil eda 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n i n J un e 20 02 , all eg in g, i n re le va ntpa rt, tha t o ffi cers who sea rch edhi s p ro pe rty in M ay 19 99 ha d e xc eed edth e sc op e o f th e se arch warran ts an d, thu s, co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ta in supp res si on of t he ev id en ce. The di st ric t co urt de ni edth e m ot io n o n t he m eri ts lat er tha t m on th . Shi ve rs fil eda m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n p ur su an t t o F ed .R.Ci v.P . 59 , whi chth e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d. Th e co urt fu rth er d en ie d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”), as di d we. In20 03 , Shi ve rs fil eda Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m th e jud gm en t, al le gi ng frau d a ndm is ta ke inth atth e o ffi cers who sea rch edhi s pr op erty ex ceed edth e sc op e o f th e se arch warran ts an d fr au du le nt ly repre se nt eda pr ob ab le -cau se affi da vi t as a se arch warran t. The di st ric t co urt d is mis se d t he m ot io n a s anim

pe rm is si bl e su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Sh iv ers m ov edfor 2reco ns id erat io n, wh ic h t he di stric t co urt d en ie d. Th e co urt fu rth er d en ie d aCOA

an d S hi ve rs ’s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e d en ia l o f a COA. W e d en ie d a COA, as wel l. BetweenJu ly 200 6 andJan ua ry 20 09 , Shi ve rs fil edfiv e Ru le 60 (b )(4 ) m ot io ns , two of wh ic h i nc lu de d c ha ll en ge s t o the va li di ty of th e 1 99 9 s earc h warrant s. Sh iv ers vo lu nt ari ly dis m is se d o ne of t he m ot io ns , andth e d is tri ctco urt di sm is se d t he ot he r fo ur . Bot h we a ndth e d is tri ctco urt d ecl in edto gra ntCOAs. InOcto be r 20 09 , Shi ve rs fil edan ot he r Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n, wh ic h a ga in al le ge d, i n p art , pu rp orte d d efec ts or f rau d i n t he sea rch warran ts an d s up po rti ng affi da vi ts . The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he m ot io n wi th ou t p reju di ce t o t he fil in g of anap pl ic at io n fo r le av e to fil e a s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Sh iv ers m ov edfor reco ns id erat io n, wh ic h t he di stric t co urt d en ie d. In it s o rd er d en y in g reco ns id erat io n, the di st ric t co urt s ta te d, “ Any furthe r fri vo lo us m ot io ns wil l re su lt in anord er t o s ho w cau se why sa nc ti on s fo r anab us e o f pr oc es s s ho ul d n otbe en te red .” The d is tri ctco urt an d we d en ie d aCOA. Add it io na ll y , Shi ve rs un su cces sf ul ly app li edto us in20 05 , 20 06 , and20 09 fo r le av e to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. He al so att em pt edat l eas t on ce t o c ol la te ral ly atta ckhi s co nv ic ti on with a28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1 p et it io n fi le d i n an ot he r di st ric t. Thi s p et it io n a ll eg edth atth e ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im ha d b een 3se iz edil le ga ll y pu rs uantto de fect iv e o r frau du le ntwarran ts an d a ffi da vi ts . InJu ly 201 0, Sh iv ers fil edan“ in de pe nd en t ac ti on to setasi de jud gm en t fo r frau d upo n t he co urt p ur su an t t o t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 6 0( d) (3 ).” The m ot io n a ll eg edth at(1) th e d efec ts or f rau d i n t he sea rch warran ts an d affi da vi ts , (2) th e subs eque ntil le ga l s ei zu re o f ev id en ce, (3 ) th e p ro se cu to r’s an d de fen se att orne y ’s all eg edco ll us io n i n asch em e to withh ol d e vi de nc e o f th e se arch ’s il le ga li ty, an d (4 ) de fen se co un se l’s fa il ur e to supp res s the il le ga ll y sei zed ev id en ce co ns ti tu te d fabr ic at io n o f ev id en ce an d afrau d upo n t he co urt. The di stric t co urt d en ie d t he Ru le 60 (d )(3 ) act io n wi th ou t p reju di ce t o fi li ng anap pl ic at io n fo r le av e to fil e a s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Itfurth er n ot edit s in he ren t p owe r to pre ve ntve xa ti ou s l it ig at io n, an d o rd eredSh iv ers to sh ow caus e why he s ho ul d n otbe san ct io ne d i n t he form of d en ia l o f IFP s ta tu s fo r al l fu tu re fri vo lo us m ot io ns . Shi ve rs ap pe al edth e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er i ns of ar as itde ni ed th e Ru le 60 (d )(3 ) m ot io n, an d b ot h t he di stric t co urt an d we d en ie d aCOA. Afte r rec ei vi ng Sh iv ers ’s res po ns e to th e sh ow- cau se po rti on of t he ord er, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the Ru le 60 (d )(3 ) m ot io n a ll eg edco rruptco nduc t b y of fic ers of t he co urt ar is in g fr om th e se arch -warra ntaffi da vi ts , andth atSh iv ers ha d ra is edalm os t i de nt ic al co m pl ai nt s i n h is ori gi na l § 22 55 m ot io n, the 20 03 Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n, an d R ul e 6 0( b) (4 ) m ot io ns fil edinNov em be r 20 06 , Jan ua ry 420 09 , andOcto be r 20 09 . It fu rth er n ot edth atitha d warne d S hi ve rs inth e d en ia l

of th e Oct ob er 2 00 9 m ot io n t ha t h is fil in gs bo rd eredon ab us e o f pr oc es s, an d i t fo un d tha t the ab us e o f pr oc es s h adex te nd edto th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a, whe re Sh iv ers fil edth e § 22 41 pe ti ti on . The co urt fo un d t ha t Sh iv ers ’s friv ol ou s fi li ng s wer e fru st rat in g i ts res po ns ib il it y

to all oc at e it s re so ur ces ina way th atpro m ot es th e in te res ts of jus ti ce, an d t ha t, al th ou gh Sh iv ers ha d fi le d num ero us fri vo lo us m ot io ns an d wri ts , th e m os t eg reg io us ab us e o f pr oc es s was ass oc ia te d wi th hi s co nt in ue d c om pl ai nt ab ou t the affi da vi ts un de rlyin g t he 19 99 sea rch es . Accor di ng ly, rathe r th ande ny Sh iv ers IFP s ta tu s fo r al l fu tu re co ll at eral att ack s, the di st ric t co urt d en ie d IF P st atus foran y

futur e co ll at eral att ackth atall eg ed , inan y way , a co m

pl ai ntab ou t th e aff id av it s i nv ol ve d i n t he 19 99 sea rch . Any refe ren ce t o t he sea rch -warra nt affi da vi ts inan y

futur e co ll at eral att ackwou ldres ul t i n ade ni al of I FP s ta tu s an d di sm is sa l o f th e p le ad in g. Th e co urt fo un d t ha t s uc h asan ct io n was warran te d i n li gh t o f Sh iv ers ’s hi st ory

of v ex at io us an d dup li cat iv e m ot io ns , hi s l ackof g oo d fai th inpu rs ui ng th e co m pl ai nt s ab ou t the sea rch -warrantaffi da vi ts , th e b ur de n o n th e co urts crea te d b y

hi s re pe at edfil in gs , andth e in ad equa cy of a lt ern at iv e sa nc ti on s. Th e co urt fu rth er s ta te d t ha t fu tu re fri vo lo us co ll at eral att ack s co ul d res ul t i n e xp an si on of t he san ct io ns , bu t tha t Sh iv ers wou ldno t b e p rev en te d fr om 5fil in g a ny col la te ral att ackhe wis he d i f he pa idth e fi li ng fee. The co urt al so

wou ldacce ptan y

pl ead in g fi le d b y

a m em be r of th e b ar o n S hi ve rs ’s beh al f. II. In jun ct iv e res tri ct io ns on fil in gs by abu si ve li ti ga nt s ar e “ ne ces sary an d prud en t” inord er t o c urb c on du ctth atwou ldim pa ir t he rig ht s o f ot he r li ti ga nt s an d t he co urts ’ ab il it y

to carry ou t the ir Art ic le III fu nc ti on s. Pro cu p v . Stri cklan d, 79 2 F .2d10 69 , 10 71 , 10 73 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) ( en ba nc ). Ther efo re, d is tri ctco urts ha ve co ns id erab le di sc ret io n t o i m po se ev ensev ere r es tri ct io ns on whatsu ch in di vi du al s m ay

fil e an d h ow the y

m us t b eh av e, th ou gh th e co nd it io ns m us t n ot ha ve th e eff

ectof c om

pl et el y for ecl os in g a cces s t o t he co urts . Id. at 1 07 4. Re im po si ng fil in g fe es onin di ge ntli ti ga nt s i s o ne av ai labl e res tri ct io n, al th ou gh an y in jun ct io n p ro hi bi ti ng IFP fi li ng s m us t b e car efu ll y

tai lo redso as t o m in im iz e th e ex cl us io n o f le gi ti m at e cl ai m s. Mil le r v. Do na ld , 54 1 F .3d10 91 , 10 96 -9 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (d is cu ss in g s uc h re st ric ti on s i n t he no n- habe as co nt ex t). Inad di ti on , bef

or e a fed eral pri so ne r m ay fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n i n t he di st ric t co urt, h e m us t ap pl y to us foranord er au th or iz in g t he di st ric t co urt t o c on si de r it . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( h) , cr os s- re fe re nc in g 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4. A Ru le 60 m ot io n t ha t at ta ck s the de fen dant ’s con vi ct io n o r th e m eri ts of th e p rev io us res ol ut io n o f a p os t-c on vi ct io n c la im m us t b e co ns tru edas a 6su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Gon za le z v. C ro sb y , 54 5 U.S. 5 24 , 53 1- 32 , 12 5 S .Ct. 26 41 , 26 47 -4 8, 1 62 L.Ed.2d48 0 (2 00 5) . Si nc e th e d en ia l o f hi s § 22 55 m ot io n i n J un e 2 00 2, Sh iv ers ha s fi le d n in e ad di ti on al po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io ns an d p et it io ns , fou r of whi chhe fol lo wedwith un su cces sf

ul m ot io ns forreco ns id erat io n. Si x o f th e m ot io ns an d p et it io ns , in cl ud in g t he Ru le 60 (d )(3 ) act io n, u lt im at el y ha ve so ug htto ch al le ng e th e v al id it y of hi s co nv ic ti on on th e b as is of t he all eg ed ly defec ti ve or f rau du le ntsea rch warrant s an d a ffi da vi ts . The d is tri ctco urts ha ve rep eat ed ly andco rrec tl y in st ru ct edhi m

th atth is cla im

is no t co gn iz ab le un le ss we gr an t h im pe rm is si on to rai se itina su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n, wh ic h we h av e n ev er d on e. The d is tri ct co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n c on cl ud in g t ha t Sh iv ers ’s in si st en ce o n co nt in ui ng to rai se a cl ai m th athe is st atut or il y

pro hi bi te d fr om

pu rs ui ng , se e § 2 25 5( h) , con st itut edve xa ti ou s l it ig at io n t ha t warran te d s om e type o f sa nc ti on . Se e Pro cu p , 79 2 F .2dat 1 07 1, 1 07 3- 74 . Inde te rm in in g t he san ct io n t ha t wo ul d b e ap pr op ria te , th e d is tri ctco urt no te d t ha t Sh iv ers ’s m os t eg reg io us be ha vi orwas a ss oc ia te d wi thth e se arch warrantis su e. Inth e in te res t o f cu rb in g t he ve xa ti ou s s earc h- warrant -rel at ed li ti ga ti on whi le m in im iz in g t he effe ctonpo te nt ia l l eg it im at e cl ai m s, the co urt de te rm in edth at(1) an y

futur e pr o s e pl ead in g tha t ad dr es se d t he sea rch warran t

7is su e wil l b e d en ie d IF P st atus , andth e p le ad in g wi ll be di sm is se d i f Sh iv ers do es

no t p ay th e fi li ng fee; (2) IFP s ta tu s i s n otpro sp ect iv el y ba rredforfutur e pr o s e pl ead in gs th atdo no t ad dr es s the sea rch -warra ntis su e; an d (3 ) Sh iv ers m ay fil e an y po st -co nv ic ti on cla im

he wis he s i f he pa y s the fil in g fe e o r fi le s the pl ead in g th ro ug h c ou ns el . The d is tri ctco urt’s re as on ed , caref ul ly tail or edin

jun ct io n l eav es th e co urth ou se do orop enforall cla im s n otrel at edto th e th or ou gh ly exh au st ed se arch -warra ntis su e, an d, thu s, cl earl y was wi th in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is cret io n. Se e Mil le r , 54 1 F .3dat 1 09 6- 97 ; Pro cu p , 79 2 F .2dat 1 07 4. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t. AFFIRMED.

8