Court Opinion

ID: 9408995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 16:02:00.648727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.216289
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 ABDUL MOHAMMED,

                               Plaintiff,

 v.                                                        Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01475 (ACR)

 CHRISTOPHER COOPER, et al.,

                           Defendants.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

       Pro se Plaintiff Abdul Mohammed (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia (“Superior Court”). The Complaint seeks damages against Defendants

Christopher Cooper, Beryl Howell, James Boasberg, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Amy Berman

Jackson, Rudolph Contreras, Tanya Chutkan, Randolph Moss, Amit Mehta, Timothy Kelly,

Trevor McFadden, Dabney Friedrich, Carl Nichols, Jia Cobb, Thomas Hogan, Royce Lamberth,

Paul Friedman, Emmet Sullivan, Reggie Walton, John Bates, Richard Leon, Barbara Rothstein,

Michael Harvey, Zia Faruqui, Robin Meriweather, and Moxila Upadhyaya (collectively,

“Defendants”)—all of whom are federal judges—arising from the dismissal of a previously filed

action, Mohammed v. Biden, No. 22-cv-3489 (D.D.C.), before Judge Cooper. Dkt. 1-1 ¶ 5.

       Currently before this Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, Dkt. 7; Defendants’ request

for a pre-filing injunction, Dkt. 12 at 5; and the United States’ request for a pre-filing injunction

and related order, Dkt. 14. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion

to Remand; ENJOINS Plaintiff from filing another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia subject to the details of this Order; and STAYS the obligation of any

                                                  1
defendant named in a civil action brought by Plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, or removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to plead or

otherwise respond to such complaint absent further order of the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia in any such civil action.

                                       I. BACKGROUND

       Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in Superior Court on February 2, 2023, alleges that Judge

Cooper dismissed Case No. 22-cv-3489 “in a summary manner based on some falsehoods

without hearing the Plaintiff even once and without allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint

even once.” Dkt. 1-1 ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that the other Defendants “have tolerated [Judge]

Cooper’s actions . . . when they had the obligation to file a complaint for judicial misconduct

against [Judge] Cooper.” Id. ¶ 7. He brings 11 statutory, constitutional, and state-law claims.

Id. ¶¶ 20–71.

       Defendants removed the case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) on May 23, 2023.

Dkt. 1. Soon after, Defendants filed a status report advising the Court of Plaintiff’s history of

“filing duplicative and frivolous cases” and requested a pre-filing injunction. Dkt. 6 at 2–3

(quotations omitted). In their status report, Defendants advised the Court that Plaintiff had failed

to effectuate service. Id. at 1–2 & n.1. Defendants also filed a Westfall certification under 28

U.S.C. § 2679(d) to substitute the United States for Defendants with respect to Plaintiff’s state

law causes of action in Count 10 of his Complaint. Dkt. 5.

       Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that Defendants’ removal was untimely because more

than 30 days had expired, and attached more than 1,600 pages of exhibits. See Dkt. 7. On June

13, 2023, the case was reassigned from Judge Cooper to the undersigned. The next day the

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause “why the Court should not issue an injunction barring

                                                 2
Plaintiff from filing new complaints in this Court and explaining why his instant complaint is not

frivolous, harassing, or duplicative.” June 14, 2023 Minute Order (citing Mohammed v. Biden,

2023 WL 183674, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2023)). Plaintiff responded on July 7, 2023. Dkt. 7.

The United States filed a Statement of Interest on July 13, 2023, requesting a pre-filing

injunction and related order. Dkt. 14 at 3.

                                            II. DISCUSSION

        A.      Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

                1.      Legal Standard

        Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), “[a] civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in

a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to

the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it

is pending: . . . [a]ny officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under

color of office or in the performance of his duties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(3).

        Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, the notice of removal “shall be filed within 30 days after the

receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting

forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after

the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court

and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446(b)(1). “The Supreme Court has held that the 30-day period for removal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446(b) does not run until a defendant is brought under the court’s authority by formal service

of process (or waiver of such service).” UMC Dev., LLC v. D.C., 982 F. Supp. 2d 13, 17 (D.D.C.

2013); see Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347–48 (1999). “This is

true even if the defendant knows about the suit earlier and has obtained a copy of the complaint.”

                                                   3
UMC Dev., LLC, 982 F. Supp. at 17; see also Holmes v. PHI Serv. Co., 437 F. Supp. 2d 110, 115

(D.D.C. 2006).

               2.      Analysis

       Plaintiff had not completed service on Defendants as of May 23, 2023—the date of

removal—so the 30-day clock had not begun. 1 Thus, the removal was timely. “District of

Columbia law controls as to when effective service occurred.” UMC Dev., LLC, 982 F. Supp. 2d

at 17. Among other issues, as a party, Plaintiff may not act as his own process server. See D.C.

Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Moreover, to complete service,

Plaintiff must serve the United States Attorney’s Office. See D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 4(i); see

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). And “actual notice of the action is immaterial to the sufficiency of

service of process.” McLaughlin v. Fid. Sec. Life Ins., 667 A.2d 105, 107 (D.C. 1995) (per

curiam). As of June 20, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office “ha[d] no record of proper service on

the United States Attorney as required by Rule 4(i) of both the District of Columbia and Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.” Dkt. 12 at 4; see also Dkt. 6 at 2 (counsel declaring under penalty of

perjury that U.S. Attorney’s Office service recordation system “contains no record of service on

1
 When service is not made or is defective before removal, a plaintiff must effectuate proper
service within 90 days of the removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1448; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Henok v.
Chase Home Fin., LLC, 890 F. Supp. 2d 65, 71 & n.4 (D.D.C. 2012) (service under § 1448 must
be made within 120 days after removal—citing version of Rule 4(m) in effect before time limit
was changed from 120 to 90 days); see also 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1137 (4th ed.) (stating that “the Rule 4(m) time period starts
to run upon removal to the federal district court, not the date the action was originated in state
court”). The Court notes, however, that “[w]hether the 90 days under Rule 4(m) is calculated
from the original date of filing in the state court or whether it is calculated from the date of
removal . . . is subject to considerable debate by federal courts.” Hardy-roy v. Shanghai Kindly
Enterprises Dev. Grp. Co., 2021 WL 229282, at *4 n.6 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2021).

                                                 4
the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this action as of” June 1, 2023). Thus, Defendants’ removal was

timely and proper. 2

       B.      Pre-Filing Injunction

               1.      Legal Standard

       “There is no doubt that a court may employ injunctive remedies—such as filing

restrictions—to protect the integrity of courts and the orderly and expeditious administration of

justice.” Smith v. Scalia, 44 F. Supp. 3d 28, 46 (D.D.C. 2014) (quotations omitted), aff’d, 2015

WL 13710107 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 14, 2015). “Any such restrictions must be narrowly tailored to

protect that interest without unduly impairing a litigant’s right of access to the courts.” Id.

(cleaned up). “Moreover, such restrictions should remain very much the exception to the general

rule of free access to the courts, and the use of such measures against pro se plaintiffs should be

approached with particular caution.” Id. (quotations omitted).

       “In this jurisdiction, three steps are required before a district court may issue a pre-filing

injunction.” Caldwell v. Obama, 6 F. Supp. 3d 31, 50 (D.D.C. 2013); see also Smith, 44 F. Supp.

3d at 46. “First, concerned with the potential denial of due process rights, the Court must

provide notice and the opportunity to be heard.” Caldwell, 6 F. Supp. 3d at 50. “Second, the

court must develop a record for review in order to further ensure that the filer’s due process

rights are not violated.” Id. (quotations omitted). “In this regard, the D.C. Circuit has stated that

the district courts should consider both the number and content of the filings when considering

2
  As Defendants explain, see Dkt. 12 at 2–7, the remaining elements of removal under Sections
1442 and 1446 were satisfied. First, Plaintiff initiated a civil action, see D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ.
P. 2, and the Superior Court is a “State court,” 28 U.S.C. § 1451. Second, Defendants are federal
judges being sued for their action or inaction in connection to a civil case, No. 22-cv-3489
(D.D.C.), so they qualify as parties who can remove. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(3); Jefferson
Cnty., Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 430 (1999). Third, Defendants complied with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(d) by providing both Plaintiff and the Superior Court the notice of removal and corrected
notice of removal. See Dkt. 1; Dkt. 3.

                                                  5
an injunction.” Id. (quotations omitted). Third, “to avoid vacatur of a pre-filing injunction, the

court must make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s

actions.” Id. (quotations omitted).

               2.      Analysis

       The Court makes the findings below in support of its narrowly-tailored pre-filing

injunction. First, the Court provided Plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to be heard when it

issued a show cause order requiring Plaintiff to explain “why his instant complaint is not

frivolous, harassing, or duplicative,” June 14, 2023 Minute Order, and Plaintiff responded, Dkt.

13. Plaintiff argues that the Court “entered the order to show cause . . . only to harass the

Plaintiff” and that the undersigned “is disqualified from the instant case due to her prejudice

against the Plaintiff and her bias toward the Defendants and their attorneys.” Dkt. 13 at 7, 9.

Such baseless arguments support imposing the pre-filing injunction. See Caldwell, 6 F. Supp. 3d

at 50 (issuing pre-filing injunction after similar order to show cause and response from litigant);

see also Smith, 44 F. Supp. 3d at 46 (holding that addressing pre-filing injunction in briefing

suffices for notice and opportunity to be heard). Thus, he received adequate notice and an

opportunity to be heard.

       Second, “Plaintiff arrives in this Court with a documented history of vexatious litigation,”

and he “has been repeatedly sanctioned by the Northern District [of Illinois] and the Seventh

Circuit,” including with filing restrictions. Mohammed, 2023 WL 183674, at *1 (listing cases

and noting that from February 2016 to June 2020, Plaintiff filed at least 14 cases in the Northern

District of Illinois); see also In re Mohammed, 834 F. App’x 240, 241 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting

that Plaintiff’s “abusive litigation practices were straining court resources and that this [filing

bar] is necessary to curb his behavior”). Plaintiff argues that “the instant case is not duplicative

                                                   6
of Mohammed v. Biden.” Dkt. 13 at 1. The Court’s pre-filing injunction, however, is based on

the totality of Plaintiff’s conduct in this District and elsewhere.

       Third, Plaintiff’s filings contain “frivolous or harassing” arguments. See Caldwell, 6 F.

Supp. 3d at 51. Plaintiff, for example, repeatedly uses inappropriate language or slurs—which

the Court will not repeat here—in his allegations. See, e.g., Dkt. 1-1 at ¶¶ 6, 13, 14. Moreover,

without a pre-filing injunction “it is highly likely that there will continue to be one lawsuit after

another here in this district, naming each successive judge who considers the legally baseless

contentions, world without end.” Smith, 44 F. Supp. 3d at 47. This year alone, Plaintiff has filed

at least five civil actions in Superior Court against dozens of defendants, including federal

officials, federal judges, and others. See Dkt. 14 at 1–2 (listing cases). Without a pre-filing

injunction, this cycle will repeat itself. Smith, 44 F. Supp. 3d at 47 (finding that litigant’s “cycle

of filing lawsuits against judges who rule against him raises the spectre of harassment” and

supported pre-filing injunction).

       For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s filings are “both vexatious

and harassing to the parties named as defendants and imposes an unwarranted burden on the

orderly and expeditious administration of justice.” Caldwell, 6 F. Supp. 3d at 52.

                                                   7
                               IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

       For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand,

Dkt. 7, is DENIED.

       It is FURTHER ORDERED that, effective immediately, Plaintiff is ENJOINED from

filing any lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia without first obtaining

leave to file upon a showing that the complaint raises new, non-frivolous matters never before

decided on the merits or on jurisdictional grounds by the U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, including a concise description of the non-frivolous allegations contained in such

complaint. Except as noted below, if Plaintiff files a new action in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia without first seeking leave to do so in accordance with the stated

prerequisites, it will be summarily dismissed. Further, any such case that meets the description

above that is removed to or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

will also be summarily dismissed. 3 Any attempt to circumvent this pre-filing injunction may

lead to the imposition of other sanctions or filing restrictions.

       This Order does not prohibit Plaintiff’s ability to defend himself in any criminal action,

access to the federal courts through the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or other

extraordinary writ, or access to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit or the United States Supreme Court. After two years from the date of this Order, upon a

showing of good cause, Plaintiff may request that the U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia modify or rescind the restrictions imposed.

3
  The applicability of this Order to removed cases “is necessary to avoid giving [Plaintiff] a
straightforward path to evading the filing restriction in every case.” Hansmeier v. HRP
Woodbury II, LLC, 2022 WL 1564973, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 11, 2022), aff’d, 2022 WL
16907176 (8th Cir. Oct. 18, 2022).

                                                   8
       It is FURTHER ORDERED that the obligation of any defendant named in a civil action

brought by Plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, or removed to the

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to plead or otherwise respond to such complaint

is AUTOMATICALLY STAYED absent further order of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Columbia in any such civil action.

       SO ORDERED.

Date: July 14, 2023                            ANA C. REYES
                                               United States District Judge

                                                 9