Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Drake v. Nordstrom Department Stores

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

March 1, 2018

ERIC V. DRAKE, Plaintiff,
v.
NORDSTROM DEPARTMENT STORES, Defendant.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          DAVID L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Eric V. Drake, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and state law torts, brings this a pro se action against Defendant Nordstrom Department Stores related to a nose waxing procedure performed at a spa located in a Nordstrom store in Dallas. See Dkt. No. 3. This action has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from United States District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.

         Drake moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt. No. 4. The undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that the Court deny the IFP motion and dismiss this action without prejudice on the basis of sanctions imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

         Applicable Background

         Drake has filed numerous civil cases in this district and elsewhere. And at least the Eastern District of Texas has explicitly noted his vexatious litigation practices and sanctioned him accordingly. Earlier this year, that court noted:

Drake has a long history of vexatious litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and other districts across the United States and has been prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis with any civil action in the Eastern District of Texas without first obtaining leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Eric Drake v. Travelers Indem. Co. Consumer Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:11-CV-00318-MHS-CMC (No. 11). Respondents' Motion includes a list of cases filed by Drake over the last seven years that is more than a page in length, including the following cases in the Eastern District: Eric Drake v. Travelers Indem. Co. Consumer Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-318; Eric Drake v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co., et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-516; Eric Drake v. Bank of America, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-515; Eric Drake v. Mary Smith, et al., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, Civil Action No. W-12-MC-152; Eric Drake v. Wendell Withrow, et al., in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-303; Eric Drake v. Mercedes Benz U.S.A., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-00041; Eric Drake v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., Navistar International Corp., and Gallagher Basset Services, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-00183; Eric Drake v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, No. 4:12-CV-264; In re: Eric Drake, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, No. 4:11-MC-037; In re: Eric Drake, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, No. 4:11-MC-043; In re Eric Drake, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, No. 4:16-MC-000371228.

In re Eric Drake, No. 4:17-MC-69-ALM-CAN, 2018 WL 912894, at *1 n.2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2018), rec. adopted, 2018 WL 905560 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2018); see also In re Eric Drake, No. 4:17-MC-69-ALM-CAN, Dkt. No. 11 at 1 n.2 (E.D. Tex.) (complete footnote referenced in the court's decision cites cases filed nationwide - and as far away as the District of Hawaii - including cases filed in the Northern District of Texas and in state courts in Dallas County).

         As noted, the Eastern District of Texas imposed the following sanctions against Drake in 2012:

Eric Drake is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis with any civil action in this court - whether he filed it in this court, he filed it in another court and it was removed to this court, or he filed in another federal court and it was transferred to this court - unless he first obtains from a district judge of this court leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. If a civil action is removed or transferred to this court, the case will be subject to summary dismissal unless, within 30 days of the date of removal or transfer, Drake seeks, in writing, leave from a district judge of this court to proceed in this court.

Eric Drake v. Travelers Indem. Co. Consumer Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-00318-MHS-CMC, Dkt. No. 11 at 6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2012).

         Legal Standards and Analysis

         “[T]he judicial system is generally accessible and open to all individuals.” Kaminetzky v. Frost Nat'l Bank of Houston, 881 F.Supp. 276, 277 (S.D. Tex. 1995). But “district courts have an obligation to protect the orderly administration of justice and prevent abuse of the court's process by frivolous and vexatious litigants[, which means p]ro se litigants have ‘no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.'” Ruston v. Dallas Cty., Tex., No. 3:07-cv-1076-D, 2008 WL 958076, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2008) (quoting Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986)).

         And this Court routinely “honors sanctions imposed by other federal district courts in Texas” against prisoner and non-prisoner vexatious litigants alike. Roy v. Ass'n Comm. to Elect Rev. Dr. Kamal K. Roy, No. 3:08-cv-327-N, 2008 WL 1970945, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 5, 2008).

In general, the court retains the inherent authority to curb abusive litigation. Federal courts in Texas will honor sanctions imposed by other federal district courts in Texas against a prisoner litigant. See Misc. Ord. 48 (N.D. Tex.); Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of action based on enforcing other district's sanction order); Schmidt v. Van Buren, 243 Fed.Appx. 803 (5th Cir. June 13, ...

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.