United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS
MALICIOUS AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS
GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT is pro se Plaintiff Demario Dontez Walker's
Complaint  and Motion  for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). Walker is presently
an inmate of the Mississippi Department of Corrections
incarcerated at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility
in Pearl, Mississippi.
Complaint  is a duplication of the claims he presents in
Walker v. Hunt, No. 1:19-cv-246-LG-RHW (filed April
19, 2019). In fact, pages 6-17 of the Complaint filed in this
civil action is an exact copy of the Complaint filed in civil
action number 1:19-cv-246-LG-RHW (“Walker
action may be dismissed as malicious if it duplicates claims
raised by the same plaintiff in previous or pending
litigation.” Emmett v. Hawthorn, 459 Fed.Appx.
490, 491 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). A district court
has “broad discretion” in dismissing a complaint
as malicious. Blakely v. Evans, 574 Fed.Appx. 420,
420 (5th Cir. 2014). Walker is entitled to “one bite at
the litigation apple-but not more.” Pittman v.
Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993). Walker's
Complaint  is malicious to the allegations presented in
is an experienced pro se litigator with
“three-strikes” under § 1915. Despite his
strike status, Walker is proceeding IFP under the exception
provision in Walker I. Many of Walker's claims
in Walker I and several other previous civil actions
have been dismissed as malicious. See Walker v.
Banks, No. 3:17-cv-995-CWR-FKB (S.D.Miss. Feb. 9, 2018)
(listing previous actions and dismissing case as Walker's
fourth duplicative action). Walker is well-aware that it is
“malicious” to “file a lawsuit that
duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by
the same plaintiff.” Pittman, 980 F.2d at 995.
Courts have inherent powers “to protect the efficient
and orderly administration of justice and . . . to command
respect for [their] orders, judgments, procedures, and
authority.” In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902
(5th Cir. 1993). Included in this inherent power is the
authority “to levy sanctions in response to abusive
litigation practices.” Id. Walker has been
warned on at least two prior occasions that if he continues
to file repetitive, duplicative, and malicious complaints he
will be subject to sanctions. See Walker v. Banks,
No. 3:17-cv-995-CWR-FKB (S.D.Miss. Feb. 9, 2018) (issuing
second sanction warning for filing duplicative civil
actions). Specifically, the Court warned Walker that
“continuing to file duplicative lawsuits or civil
actions determined to be abusive filings will invite the
imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary
sanctions, and/or restrictions on his ability to file
pleadings in this Court.” Id. As evidenced by
this case, the Court's prior warnings have gone unheeded
by Walker. Lesser sanctions have not deterred Walker from
filing malicious pleadings. In light of Walker's
continued filing of malicious pleadings, the Court finds the
imposition of a monetary sanction to be appropriate. See
e.g., In re Winding, No. 10-60431 (5th Cir. Aug. 3,
2010) (imposing monetary sanction of $200.00 for
prisoner's failure to heed two prior sanction warnings);
In re Rich, No. 07-30650 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2007)
(imposing monetary sanction of $250.00 for prisoner's
repetitive motions noting that “[b]ecause Rich failed
to heed [a prior] warning, we now impose a monetary
sanction.”). Walker is assessed a monetary sanction in
the amount of $50.00, for his repeated malicious filings.
See Annamalai v. Sivanadiyan, 713 Fed.Appx. 409, 411
(5th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal of pro se litigant's
complaint as malicious and district court's imposition of
monetary sanctions and imposing additional monetary sanction
of $500 for frivolous appeal). Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED that pro se Plaintiff Demario Dontez
Walker's Motion  for leave to proceed IFP is granted
for the limited purpose of screening this Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). The required payment schedule
for the filing fee will be established by separate order.
Having completed that screening, the Court determines that
this civil action is DISMISSED AS MALICIOUS.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this dismissal is without
prejudice to Walker's pursuit of Walker v. Hunt,
No. 1:19-cv-246-LG-RHW (filed April 19, 2019).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Walker is assessed a
monetary sanction in the amount of $50.00, for his repeated
malicious filings. Payment of this sanction is due
immediately to the Clerk of Court.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Walker is cautioned that if
he files any additional duplicative or malicious pleadings it
will lead to the imposition of additional sanctions,
including but not limited to increased monetary
fines or restrictions on his ability to file pro
se actions in this Court.