Dantzler v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n

• Decision Date: 16 September 2011
• Docket Number: 10–0349(RMU).,09–2149(RMU),Civil Action Nos. 09–2147 (RMU)
• Citation: 810 F.Supp.2d 312
• Parties: Oscar DANTZLER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION et al., Defendants.Oscar Dantzler, Plaintiff, v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., Defendants.Oscar Dantzler, Plaintiff, v. Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

810 F.Supp.2d 312

Oscar DANTZLER, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION et al., Defendants.Oscar Dantzler, Plaintiff,

v.United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., Defendants.Oscar Dantzler, Plaintiff,

v.Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office et al., Defendants.

Civil Action Nos. 09–2147 (RMU)

09–2149(RMU)

10–0349(RMU).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Sept. 16, 2011.

Oscar Dantzler, Hammond, LA, pro se.

Felice D. Cherry, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.

Denying the Plaintiff's Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Granting the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss

I. INTRODUCTION

These matters come before the court on the defendants' ¹ respective motions to dismiss and the pro se plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. The plaintiff commenced three separate but related cases in this court, each involving his 1998 dismissal from the Hammond Police Department (“HPD”) in Hammond, Louisiana. The plaintiff moves the court to appoint counsel to represent him in these matters. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss each of the plaintiff's cases.² Because the plaintiff has not met his burden to show that appointment of counsel would be proper, the court denies the plaintiff's motion. Further, because the court concludes that the plaintiff filed these cases in contravention of an injunctive order issued by the Eastern District of Louisiana, the court dismisses the plaintiff's three cases.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background ³

The plaintiff, an African–American, worked as a police officer with the HPD from January 1996 until his termination in February 1998. Dantzler v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, Civ. No. 09–2147 (D.D.C.2009), Compl. at 14. The HPD suspended the plaintiff for allegedly sleeping while on duty as a police officer, but when the HPD attempted to provide written notice to the plaintiff regarding this suspension, he refused to accept the delivery. Id. at 6–7. After determining that his refusal to accept notice of suspension constituted insubordination and failure to obey a direct order, the HPD terminated him. Id. In 1998, the plaintiff appealed to the Civil Service Board, presumably for the City of Hammond, but was denied a hearing. Id. at 10, 24–25.

In February 2000, the plaintiff sued the City of Hammond and the HPD in the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging discriminatory and retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, respectively. See generally Dantzler v. City of Hammond, Civ. No. 00–446 (E.D.La. Nov. 8, 2001), Order; see also Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 08–3777 (E.D.La. July 22, 2009), Order at 7 (providing an overview of the procedural history of the plaintiffs' various claims). In November 2001, the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. See Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 08–3777 (E.D.La. July 22, 2009), Order at 2. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Louisiana's ruling in November 2002, and in May 2003, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari. Id.; see also Dantzler v. City of Hammond, La., 538 U.S. 1042, 123 S.Ct. 2094, 155 L.Ed.2d 1077 (2003).

In October 2003, the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Louisiana state court against the City of Hammond, seeking to compel the Hammond Fire and Police Civil Service Board to hold a hearing regarding the plaintiff's termination. See generally Dantzler v. Hammond Fire & Police Civil Serv. Bd., 923 So.2d 40, 41 (La.Ct.App.2005), writ denied, 924 So.2d 1016 (La.2006). Applying the doctrines of laches and res judicata, the state district court denied his request and the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit affirmed. Id. at 41–42.

In June 2006, the plaintiff filed a third cause of action, his second in the Eastern District of Louisiana, “alleging that the defendants had violated a federal court order in which the Hammond Civil Service Board agreed to timely hold hearings with respect to grievances of [HPD] employees.” Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 08–3777, (E.D.La. July 23, 2009), Order at 2–3 (providing a detailed overview of the procedural history of this case (citing Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 06–2817 (E.D.La.2006))). Judge Martin Feldman granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's action; the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Id.

In December 2006, the plaintiff commenced a fourth lawsuit in the Louisiana state court against the City of Hammond, its Council, the HPD, the Hammond Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board and several other defendants who worked for these and other organizations in both their individual and official capacity. See generally Dantzler v. Montecino, Civ. No. 06–10924 (E.D.La.2006), Dec. 1, 2006 Compl. The December 2006 action was removed to the Eastern District of Louisiana, where Judge Feldman presided over the matter again. Id. Judge Feldman warned the plaintiff that he should refrain from “wasting the Court's time by repeatedly filing baseless motions, followed by filing frivolous motions questioning the Court's denial of prior baseless motions.” Dantzler v. City of Hammond Councilmen, 2007 WL 4180589, at *2–3 (E.D.La. Nov. 21, 2007). He went on to describe the plaintiff's filings as “abusive and meritless.” Id. at *3. Eventually, this case was reassigned to Judge Lance Africk,⁴ who dismissed the case after determining that the plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata. See generally Dantzler v. City of Hammond Councilmen, Civ. No. 06–10924 (E.D.La. July 9, 2009), Order.

On December 14, 2007, the plaintiff filed a fifth lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging wrongful termination and failure to timely conduct a civil service hearing. Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 08–3777, (E.D.La. July 22, 2009), Order at 2–3 (citing Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 07–9516 (E.D.La.2007)). In June 2008, the plaintiff commenced a sixth lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging a conspiracy among the judiciary to conceal facts regarding his termination from HPD and his denial of a civil service hearing. See Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 08–3777, (E.D.La. July 22, 2009), Order at 2–3 (citing Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 08–3777 (E.D.La.2008)). The plaintiff's seventh lawsuit, again related to his termination, alleged a conspiracy among the judiciary to violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Id. (citing Dantlzer v. Africk, Civ. No. 09–3703 (E.D.La.2009)). The plaintiff's eighth lawsuit related to his termination alleged that various federal agencies and the state and federal courts of Louisiana deprived him of his due process and equal protection rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. (citing Dantlzer v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, Civ. No. 09–4246 (E.D.La.2009)). All of these cases were assigned to Judge Lance M. Africk. See generally id.

After dismissing the plaintiff's sixth action on the basis of a failure to state a claim, Judge Africk ordered that the plaintiff refrain from filing any additional complaints or proceedings against the defendants in that case without written permission from the court.⁵ See generally id. (providing a detailed overview of the procedural history of this case). On July 22, 2009, Judge Africk further “enjoined [the plaintiff] from submitting any further filings relating to [his] termination from the [HPD] unless the Court grants [him] leave to file upon a finding that his pleadings are neither frivolous nor vexatious.” Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 08–3777 (E.D.La. July 22, 2009), Order at 7.⁶ Judge Africk described the plaintiff's lawsuits against the various parties, including the City of Hammond, HPD, individual attorneys, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit, as “repetitive ... abusive, frivolous, and, to date, unending.” Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 08–3777 (E.D.La. July 22, 2009), Order at 6. The plaintiff subsequently appealed Judge Africk's July 22, 2009 Order, but the Fifth Circuit dismissed his appeal for want of prosecution. See Dantzler v. Pope, Civ. No. 08–3777 (5th Cir. Sept. 25, 2009), Notice at 2.

B. Procedural History

Since the issuance of Judge Africk's July 2009 order, the plaintiff has commenced three actions in this courthouse. See generally Dantzler v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, Civ. Action No. 09–2147; Dantzler v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, Civ. No. 09–2149; Dantzler v. Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office, Civ. No. 10–0349.

The plaintiff's first suit alleges wrongful termination and racial discrimination in violation of Title VII, as well as various other claims arising from his dismissal from the HPD.⁷ See Dantzler v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n., Civ. No. 09–2147 (D.D.C. 2009), Compl. at 6–25. More specifically, the plaintiff contends that the defendants violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by discriminating against him both before and after his dismissal, and that the defendants denied him equal protection and due process by thwarting his opportunity to have a civil service hearing following his dismissal from the HPD. Id. at 36–37. He also claims that the HPD, the Civil Service Board, the City of Hammond's attorneys, his own prior counsel, and individuals associated with the HPD acted fraudulently and in furtherance of a conspiracy by withholding evidence relevant to his civil service hearing. Id. at 9–13, 15–22, 35–36. The plaintiff alleges that the judges and judicial officers who presided over his prior cases conspired with prior counsel and Hammond's attorneys to deny him a fair hearing. Id. at 23–35. Finally, the plaintiff's claims against some federal agencies...