United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
11, 2016, Fredrick Smith filed a pro se action in this Court
against William Drinkwater, Desoto County Sheriff's
Department, Officer Charles Mohon, Officer Post, Officer
Perkins, and Officer Hendrix, submitting a document entitled,
“Illegal & False Eviction From a Bogus and Void
Detainer Warrant, ” and claiming, in essence, that the
defendants wrongfully evicted him from his home. Doc. #1.
Also on July 11, Smith filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. Doc. #2.
15, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending:
that the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [docket no. 2] be DENIED and that plaintiff be
BARRED from filing future in forma pauperis actions
in this court without first seeking leave to file from a
district judge of this court. Furthermore, in light of the
court's previous warnings to plaintiff that “any
future lawsuits on this issue will be subject to summary
dismissal and, potentially, monetary sanctions”
…, it is recommended that if plaintiff elects to pay
the filing fee and proceed with this action, and if the
court, once again, finds plaintiff's claims to be
frivolous or duplicative or otherwise barred by previous
findings by the court, upon entry of such a judgment, the
court should tax costs, including reasonable attorneys fees
incurred by defendants, to the plaintiff. The undersigned
further recommends that plaintiff be allowed fourteen (14)
days from the entry of an order adopting this Report and
Recommendation to pay the standard civil filing fee of $400
or risk dismissal under F.R.Civ.P. 41(a).
#4. Smith timely filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation. Doc. #5.
objections to a report and recommendation have been filed, a
court must conduct a “de novo review of those portions
of the ... report and recommendation to which the [party]
specifically raised objections. With respect to those
portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections were raised, the Court need only satisfy itself
that there is no plain error on the face of the
record.” Gauthier v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 644
F.Supp.2d 824, 828 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Douglass v.
United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th
Cir. 1996)) (internal citation omitted).
objection, Smith argues that even though “4 previous
suits were filed, ” a recommendation that his fifth
suit be dismissed “is not constitutional” under
the First Amendment; that it is “the courts …
duty to process [a pleading];” and that nothing in the
“FRCP states a filing fee must be paid after filing 4
law suits.” Doc. #5 at 1-2. Smith further argues that
the judge erred in stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
is exclusively for prisoners because he is not a prisoner.
Id. at 2.
federal court has inherent authority “to protect the
efficient and orderly administration of justice and ... to
command respect for [its] orders, judgments, procedures, and
authority.” In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902
(5th Cir. 1993). Included in such power is the authority
“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. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; Mendoza v.
Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir. 1993). Litigants
who abuse the judicial process are “not entitled to sue
and appeal without paying the normal filing fees-indeed, are
not entitled to sue and appeal, period.” Free v.
United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989);
see Canzoneri v. McCormick, No. 3:12-cv-1241, 2012
WL 1864309, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2012) (recommending
denial of in forma pauperis motion and barring plaintiff from
filing future in forma pauperis actions without first
obtaining leave to file because of plaintiff's history of
filing frivolous, repetitive lawsuits). Even if a plaintiff
meets the financial prerequisites to proceed in forma
pauperis, his claim may be dismissed if found to be frivolous
or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
recommending dismissal, Judge Alexander explained that Smith
has filed four prior duplicative lawsuits “over the
last five years challenging attempts by various financial
institutions, law firms, or other defendants either to
foreclose upon or evict [him] from the property;” that
three of these suits were dismissed for failure to state a
claim or as barred by res judicata and/or collateral
estoppel; and that in the last prior suit, Smith, on July 13,
2016, was “barred from filing future in forma
pauperis actions in this court without first seeking
leave to file from a district judge of this
court.” Doc. #4 at 1-2. While this case is the
first of the cases naming these defendants, Smith's
complaint arises from substantially the same facts and course
of events-foreclosure of and eviction from his home-that he
unsuccessfully litigated in this Court on prior occasions.
Id. at 3-4.
Court further finds Smith's objection that Judge
Alexander found 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is exclusively
for prisoners to be without merit. As correctly noted in the
Report and Recommendation, § 1915(e)(2) applies equally
to prisoner as well as non-prisoner in forma
pauperis cases. Id. at 3 n.2; see Newsome
v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 301 F.3d
227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of
non-prisoner claims for frivolity and failure to state a
claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)). Smith's
objection will be overruled.
reviewed the remainder of the Report and Recommendation for
clear error, the Court has found none.
1. Smith's objection to the Report and Recommendation 
2. The Report and Recommendation  is ADOPTED as the