Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walker v. Turner

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

April 1, 2019



         This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Demario Dontez Walker, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. The plaintiff has brought the instant case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a federal cause of action against "[e]very person" who under color of state authority causes the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After a review of the plaintiffs extensive history of frivolous, malicious, and vexatious litigation, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the instant case should not be dismissed - and why the court should not require him to provide documentary proof to support his allegations in future cases. The plaintiff has responded to the court's show-cause order, and the matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case will be dismissed as vexatious, and Mr. Walker will be required to present documentary proof of allegations he makes in future cases.

         The Court's Show-Cause Order

         The court issued a lengthy show-cause order detailing Mr. Walker's extensive history of frivolous, meritless, vexatious litigation. In the interest of flow and ease of reference, the court will restate that history in the instant opinion, largely unchanged.

         Mr. Walker's Long History of Meritless and Vexatious Filings

         In 2009 - a decade ago -the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Mr. Walker had "struck out" under the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, stating "Walker has already been informed that he has accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)." Walker v. Mississippi Parole Bd., 333 Fed.Appx. 843, 845 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Walker v. Norwood, No. 3:08-cv-275-TSL-JCS, 2009 WL 387337, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 13, 2009)). Mr. Walker has been at least as burdensome to state courts, as the Mississippi Court of Appeals contemplated sanctioning him "for his repetitive, frivolous findings" but declined to do so "at [that] time." Walker v. State, 35 So.3d 555, 560 (¶ 21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). Indeed, Mr. Walker had "filed over forty non-habeas lawsuits for perceived mistreatment while incarcerated." Walker v. Allen, 119 So.3d 1111, 1112 (¶ 1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). As an example of the content of Mr. Walker's claims may be found in Walker v. United States, No. 08-CV-3025(ENV), 2008 WL 3851589 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008), which was dismissed as frivolous because Walker falsely alleged that he had traveled to New York in 2007, despite having been incarcerated in Mississippi since 2003.

         Undeterred by the sanctions warnings in state and federal court - and "striking out" - Mr. Walker has continued his paper onslaught against various defendants and courts. According to the website of the Mississippi Supreme Court, Mr. Walker has pursued some 58 appeals of adverse decisions in state court.

         As our sister court in the Southern District of Mississippi has noted:

[Walker] should be keenly aware of the necessity of pleading facts. In this district alone he has filed almost fifty § 1983 lawsuits, and he has accumulated nine strikes.

Walker v. Hollaway, No. 1:17CV244-LG-RHW, 2018 WL 7283267, at *2 (S.D.Miss. Nov. 7, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Walker v. Holloway, No. 1:17CV244-LG-RHW, 2019 WL 507490 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 8, 2019).1 In that case, Mr. Walker made many of the same allegations as in the present one, leveling those allegations against some of the same defendants and some different ones:

On September 7, 2017, [1] while incarcerated at South Mississippi Correctional Institution (SMCI), Demario Walker filed this lawsuit complaining that on August 22, 2017 he was "administratively reclassified to the highest security level in MDOC (C-custody)," and moved to Unit 9, which he describes as "a unit ran and operated by gang members." He claims he is being "forced back into sexual slavery since August 22, 2017.
Without elaboration, Walker alleges that all actions taken against him were in retaliation for his having filed an earlier case (Civil Action No. 1:17cv27-RHW) against SMCI officers. Walker states he was reclassified due to receiving six Rules Violation Reports (RVRs) in six months, two major rule violations and four serious ones, which resulted in his accumulating points to change him to C-custody and housing in a Special Treatment Unit (STU). Walker alleges the RVRs were false and resulted from retaliation. Named as defendants in the original complaint lawsuit were Case Manager Chasity Blakley, who performed the reclassification; Associate Warden Angie Hollaway, who approved the reclassification and Walker's transfer to Unit 9; Assistant Director of Offender Services Jarita Bivens, who approved his transfer to Unit 9; Officer Jamario Clark, who allegedly is a gang member and sexually assaulted Walker over a dozen times between February 22, 2016 and March 10, 2017, and put out a "statewide hit" on Walker; MDOC Commissioner Pelicia Hall and SMCI Superintendent Jacqualine (sic) Banks, who allegedly ordered campaigns of harassment, retaliation and terror against Walker; and Officer Marcus Nelson who also allegedly sexually assaulted Walker.2 A September 29, 2017 motion to amend the complaint resulted in the addition of two more Defendants, Pamela Robinson the Director of Offender Services/Classification and Ronald King, the Superintendent at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (CMCF).3 Robinson allegedly approved Walker's classification and transfer to CMCF "disregarding the risk to [his] health and or safety," and King allegedly housed him with violent offenders, gave him an upper bunk when he was medically restricted to a lower one, and failed to provide him with hygiene, clothing, mail, recreation, showers, cleaning supplies, legal and writing material. [6]
*2 The relief Walker requested in his complaint was an injunction prohibiting retaliation, prohibiting his being housed in Units 7, 8, 9, and 11 at SMCI, or at CMCF, the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP), SMCI Area 3 or SMCI Units Al through C2, 4 restoration to B-custody and return to Unit 10 housing, restoration of his job at the prison, $500, 000 punitive damages and $100, 000 compensatory damages. [1, p. 4]
FN. 4. Walker contends that he cannot be safely housed in any Mississippi penal institution.


         Mr. Walker's present claims are nearly identical to those set forth above (though some of the defendants are different). He was released from incarceration in July 2018, though he was reincarcerated several weeks later. Id. As in the present case, Mr. Walker alleges in Hollaway that he attempted to exhaust MDOC's grievance process, but no one ever responded to his grievances. In response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment in Hollaway, Mr. Walker stated that he did not oppose the motion, except as to defendant Jamario Clark. As a result, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing all defendants except Clark and all claims except those involving Clark. Then Walker objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, stating that he had changed his mind and would like to proceed against all defendants. As a result, the patient District Judge in Hollaway declined to adopt the Report and Recommendation and reset the plaintiff's response deadline. Again, the plaintiff's chaotic actions in his lawsuit led to the wasting of the Magistrate Judge's time and effort in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.