Johnson v. Wieser

582 F.Supp.3d 802

Jabari J. JOHNSON, Plaintiff,

v.Phillip WIESER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-cv-00229-GPG

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

Signed January 28, 2022

Jabari J. Johnson, Canon City, CO, Pro Se.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Jabari J. Johnson is in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections at the Colorado State Penitentiary in Cañon City, Colorado. Plaintiff initiated this action pro se in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by filing a partially completed copy of the District of Colorado's form Prisoner Complaint. (ECF No. 1). The District of Maryland transferred the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 85, 1391(b) and 1406(a), because venue properly lies in the District of Colorado. (See ECF No. 2).

This Court, however, has imposed filing restrictions against Plaintiff based on his abusive litigation. The filing restrictions are as follows:

(1) To initiate an action Plaintiff/Applicant must properly complete a Court-approved prisoner complaint/habeas corpus application form by completing all sections of the form pursuant to the form instructions, which is not limited to but includes writing legibly, listing only one defendant per line in the caption of the form, and providing all named defendants in the information required in Section E. of the complaint form for each separate case he has filed in this Court;

(2) To initiate an action Plaintiff/Applicant must at the same time he submits a prisoner complaint/habeas corpus application either pay the required filing fee, or in the alternative submit a request to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on a form that is approved by this Court and applicable to the action being filed, and attach a certified inmate account statement and authorization for disbursement as required; and

(3) To initiate an action Plaintiff must provide a notarized affidavit that certifies the lawsuit is not interposed for any improper purpose to harass or cause unnecessary delay, and that the filing complies with this injunction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, all other provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil [Procedure], and the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Johnson v. Hawkins, et al., No. 19-cv-03730-LTB, ECF No. 3 at 10-11 (D. Colo. Mar. 4, 2020).

Nothing in Plaintiff's complaint suggests a basis for having filed this lawsuit in the District of Maryland. All named defendants reside in the District of Colorado and all the events alleged in the complaint occurred in Colorado. At least one federal court has explained to Plaintiff—on three prior occasions—that venue properly lies in the District of Colorado when all the allegations and defendants are in Colorado. Johnson v. Gentzler, et al. , No. 22-cv-00048-LTB, ECF No. 3 at 1. The District of Colorado was clearly the proper venue for filing this action; the District of Maryland clearly was not. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit in the District of Colorado as a bad faith attempt to circumvent the filing restrictions imposed by this Court. Glendora v. Sellers , 57 F. App'x 378, 380 (10th Cir. 2003) (where the plaintiff files a lawsuit in a district that "has no relation to any of the claims or parties, [it] can only be characterized as abusive conduct" warranting filing restrictions).

Despite Plaintiff's attempt to avoid the filing restrictions imposed by this Court, they still apply. But Plaintiff has not complied with his filing restrictions. Plaintiff has failed to attest in any format, with or without notarization, that "the lawsuit is not interposed for any improper purpose to harass...