Opinion ID: 43836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Montford’s Prior Litigation

Text: Montford was employed by Metropolitan Dade County as a Court Service Officer and Inventory Clerk in the Miami Dade Police Department (“the MDPD”) until his termination in October 1992. In 1993, Montford initiated a pro se action (“Montford I”, No. 93-2335) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In his fourth amended complaint, he alleged unlawful employment practices in connection with his 1992 termination. He named Metropolitan Dade County, the MDPD, Joaquin Avino, Fred Taylor, Leonard Brady, Linda Blue, Richard Conover, Barry Hoffman, John McNeil, Dorothy Jiminez, Evan Grob, Carmen Davis, Grace Poley, and Mark Deutsch as defendants. The district court dismissed Montford’s fourth amended complaint 2 with prejudice because he violated Local Rule 7.1C. in failing to respond to the defendants’ motions to dismiss with a memorandum of law. On 10 March 1998, we affirmed the district court’s ruling. Montford I, No. 96-4299, slip op. at 4 (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 1998). While Montford’s appeal in Montford I was pending, Montford filed a second pro se action (“Montford II”, No. 97-1585) in the Southern District of Florida. In Montford II, he named a group of defendants from Montford I: Metropolitan Dade County, the MDPD, Avino, Taylor, Brady, Blue, Conover, Hoffman, Jiminez, Grob, and Deutsch. Montford also named a new group of defendants: the American Arbitration Association, Barnett Bank, the Coral Gables Police Department (“the CGPD”), the Magnetic Resonance Institute (“the MRI”), Carol Ann Anderson, R. Geoffrey Martin, Jose Fraguela, Chief Leary, R. C. Windsor, Jerry Burgin, Jimmie L. Brown, John H. Ford, Steve Rothlein, D. Hansen, A. DeLuca, Everett W. Abernathy, James Dunn, Kathy Patterson, Vicki Todaro, Dulce Perez, Buford Ford, Karin Pedersen, Fran Montalbane, Harriet Hernandez, Ellen Ehrlich, Laurie Kaufman Amber, Leslie W. Langbin, Dennis Colbert, and Dwayne Sevier. On 18 July 1997, the district court deemed Montford’s claims frivolous and dismissed Montford II without prejudice. See Montford II, No. 97-1585 at 2 (S.D. Fla. July 18, 1997) (final order of dismissal). 3 On 9 June 1998, Montford pro se initiated a third action (“Montford III,” No. 98-1305) in the Southern District of Florida. Although the action was originally assigned to Judge Lenard, it was transferred to Judge Moreno pursuant to Local Rule 3.9(C). Montford III, No. 98-1305 at 1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 1999) (order of transfer). In his second amended complaint, Montford again claimed that the defendants had engaged in unlawful employment practices, including racial and retaliatory discrimination, and had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Montford named as defendants a group from Montford I and II: Metropolitan Dade County, the MDPD, the CGPD, the MRI, Avino, Taylor, Anderson, Deutsch, Grob, Poley, Davis, Brady, Windsor, Brown, Burgin, John H. Ford, Rothlein, Blue, De Luca, Hansen, Dunn, Abernathy, Conover, Hoffman, McNeil, Pedersen, Todaro, Buford Ford, Jimenez, Hernandez, Montalbane, Colbert, and Servier. Montford also named a new group of defendants: the City of Coral Gables (“Coral Gables”), Carter, Kathy Patterson, “Sergent [sic] Identified by Badge Number 1841,” Michael Cole, and Astrida Kevisal. The defendants filed motions to dismiss Montford’s second amended complaint. On 2 August 2001, Magistrate Judge Dube issued a Report and Recommendation regarding the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Adopting the 4 Report and Recommendation in part, the district court granted the motions to dismiss filed by Grossman, the MRI, Sevier, Coral Gables, the CGPD, and Colbert. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the remaining defendants’ motions and denied Montford’s motion. The district court found that res judicata barred Montford’s claims because they stemmed from the same actions complained of and adjudicated in Montford I. Montford III, No. 981305, at 6-7 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2002) (order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment). Our circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment rulings in June 2003. See Montford III, No. 02-12112, slip op. at 2 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2003).