United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
LINDSAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is Plaintiff's Complaint
(“Complaint”) (Doc. 2), filed January 9, 2017.
This pro se action was referred to Magistrate Judge
Renee Harris Toliver, who entered the Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
(“Report”) on January 31, 2017, recommending that
the court dismiss the action. The Report determined that the
Complaint alleged substantially the same facts and events,
and includes the same defendant as Plaintiff's most
recent previous lawsuits in the Eastern District of Kentucky
and Southern District of New York. See Semiani v. United
States, No. 2:16-CV-1724, 2016 WL 6879574 (citing
Semiani v. United States, No. 5:16-CV-00160 (E.D.
Ky. May 25, 2016); Semiani v. United States, No.
1:16-CV-2850 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2016)). Accordingly, the
Report concluded that this action is duplicative and should
be dismissed as frivolous and malicious. The Report also
recommended, in light of Plaintiff's abusive filing
history and the frivolous nature of the claims asserted in
the case, that Plaintiff be warned that if he persists in
filing frivolous or baseless cases, the court may impose
monetary sanctions and/or bar him from bringing any further
actions. Specifically, the Report noted that Plaintiff has
filed over a dozen actions in seven district courts
nationwide seeking essentially the same relief based on the
same facts. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report.
objection does not identify the part of the Report to which
he raises an objection. Instead, he continues to allege
claims that are duplicative of those asserted by Plaintiff in
his prior lawsuits. Moreover, the court notes that
Plaintiff's objection is not signed in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), and it was submitted
using the Assist Team's e-mail address, not through the
mail or the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system. Accordingly,
the objection is overruled, as it does not
properly identify the portion of the Report to which it is
Abusive and Improper Filings
he is a registered ECF user, Plaintiff has repeatedly
disregarded court procedures and submitted unsigned pleadings
and correspondence directly to the Assist Team's e-mail
address in contravention of court procedures. Consequently,
on February 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge ordered the
Clerk's Office to refuse “further filings from
Plaintiff unless received through the mail or electronically
filed through ECF.” Doc. 10. Plaintiff, however,
continues to submit numerous pleadings and correspondence to
the Assist Team's e-mail address. In the past two months,
he has sent over seven submissions. See Doc. 11
(compiling e-mails received since February 3, 2017).
April 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a new, unsigned complaint with
a motion to appoint counsel through the emergency filing
e-mail address. See Case No. 3:17-CV-0932. In
essence, Plaintiff reiterates the allegations in the January
complaint and seeks the appointment of counsel. Since the new
action arises from the same course of events as the January
2017 complaint, the new case was transferred to the
undersigned and consolidated with Case No. 3:17-CV-0080.
review of the Public Access to Courts Electronic Records
(PACER) reflects Plaintiff recently filed a similar complaint
with a motion to appoint counsel in the Eastern District of
Kentucky. See In re Semiani, No. 5:17-CV-00142 (E.D.
Ky. Mar. 21, 2017) (pending screening). As in this case, the
complaint and motion were submitted for filing through the
ECF emergency filing e-mail address. Plaintiff also tendered
through e-mail a petition seeking access to the court for
justice, which repeats his assertions. See Semiani v.
United States, No. 5:16-CV-0160 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 18,
plaintiff has been advised that filings cannot be submitted
to this and other courts by e-mail and that he must sign all
of his pleadings. See Semiani v. United States, No.
16-5765 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2016) (dismissing appeal in No.
5:16-CV-0160 for failure to submit a signed notice of appeal
and noting that Plaintiff had been repeatedly notified that
pleadings could not be filed by e-mail); Semiani v.
United States, No. 5:16-CV-0160 (E.D. Ky. 2016)
(numerous docket entries and notices from clerks notifying
the plaintiff that filings must contain an original signature
and cannot be filed through e-mail).
Plaintiff has filed over a dozen actions in seven district
courts nationwide, the court determines that Plaintiff is a
serial litigator. The Report forewarns Plaintiff that
continued filing of frivolous lawsuits will result in
sanctions. Given the nature and frivolity of his lawsuit, the
court deems it appropriate to reiterate the warning regarding
the future imposition of sanctions. If Plaintiff files any
more lawsuits in violation of this court order, he will be
sanctioned monetarily, and the court will impose any other
sanctions it deems fair and just.
reviewed the Complaint, record, Report, and applicable law,
the court determines the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge recommending the dismissal of Case No.
3:17-CV-0080 are correct, and accepts them as those of the
court. The court further finds that Case No. 3:17-CV-0932 is
duplicative of the claims Plaintiff raised in Case No.
3:17-CV-0080 and the 2016 actions noted above. Even under the
most deferential review, Plaintiff reasserts claims that
allege essentially the same facts, arise from substantially
the same events, and involve the same defendants as the
claims he raised in Case No. 3:17-CV-0080 and unsuccessfully
litigated in the 2016 actions. Accordingly, the court
dismisses the consolidated action with prejudice as frivolous
and malicious. See Roberson v. Breen, 444 F.
App'x. 841, 842 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“An
action may be dismissed as malicious and frivolous if it
duplicates claims raised by the same plaintiff in previous or
pending litigation.”) (citing Pittman v.
Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-995 (5th Cir. 1993) (relating
to pending litigation); and Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878
F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989) (addressing dismissed
litigation)); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) (providing for
sua sponte dismissal of an in forma
pauperis complaint if it (1) is frivolous or malicious,
(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief).
motion to appoint counsel is denied. Doc. 3 in No.
3:17-CV-0932. A court may appoint counsel for a plaintiff
proceeding in forma pauperis only if the case
presents “‘exceptional circumstances.'”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see Castro Romero v.
Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 353-354 (5th Cir. 2001) (in
forma pauperis plaintiff is not entitled to
court-appointed counsel as a matter of law.) Here, ...