Green v. Arnold
| Decision Date | 16 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | and EP-80-CA-356.,No. EP-80-CA-333,EP-80-CA-335,EP-80-CA-333 |
| Citation | 512 F. Supp. 650 |
| Parties | Rev. Clovis Carl GREEN, Jr. v. Floyd ARNOLD et al. (two cases). Rev. Clovis Carl GREEN, Jr. v. UNITED STATES of America et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr., pro se.
Rebecca Westfall, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Clovis Carl Green, Jr. is an exceptional case, even in the exotic realm of prisoner litigation. "He may not be in a class by himself, but it doesn't take long to call the roll."1 Perhaps he aspires to the role of a contemporary Robin Hood, fighting the forces of The Establishment. In reality, however, he resembles a modern-day Iago2 or Loki,3 sowing mischief everywhere he goes. Having worn out his welcome in the Great Midwest, see Green v. Camper, 477 F.Supp. 758 (W.D.Mo.1979), and on the East Coast, Green v. U. S. District Court, 494 F.Supp. 1037 (D.D.C.1980), Green now brings his traveling show to the Sun Belt.
In his thorough opinion in Green v. Camper, supra at 759-68, Judge Hunter lists more than 500 suits filed by Green between 1972 and 1979. He has filed at least 29 more in the District of Columbia. Green v. U. S. District Court, supra. Since his arrival at La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution four months ago, Green has so far managed to file 25 suits in the Western District of Texas (see Exhibit "A" to this Order).4
Green, a self-styled "Reverend," heads a "church" founded by himself.5 Much of his voluminous litigation has centered around the church and its activities,6 but Green has also brought suits over a variety of other matters, including disciplinary actions against him by prison officials, transfers to other institutions, various conditions of confinement, etc. Besides the suits filed in his own behalf, Green has made a career of filing suits for other inmates as a "jailhouse lawyer." In the Matter of Green, 586 F.2d 1247, 1249 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 1249, 59 L.Ed.2d 475 (1979).
Since no human being could really generate more than 554 causes of action in one lifetime, one would assume that many of Green's filings have been purely repetitions of previous suits, and so they were. In re Green, 598 F.2d 1126, 1128 (8th Cir. 1979); Green v. U. S. District Court, supra at 1038; Green v. Wyrick, 428 F.Supp. 732, 737 (W.D. Mo.1976). In addition, most courts have found them frivolous, irresponsible and unmeritorious. Green v. White, 616 F.2d 1054, 1055 (8th Cir. 1980); In the Matter of Green, supra; Green v. Camper, supra at 769, n. 4, and some have been found malicious and in bad faith as well. Green v. Camper, supra at 771-2; Green v. U. S. District Court, supra at 1038. In some instances, Green's allegations have been so offensive that the Court has ordered his pleadings stricken as "vile and scandalous."7Green v. Wyrick, supra at 737. Furthermore, Green has attempted to deceive courts about his finances in an effort to proceed as a pauper, Green v. Wyrick, supra at 739, n. 12, and to use terroristic threats in an attempt to intimidate court personnel.8Green v. Camper, supra at 771.
In their understandable frustration with Green's antics, the Courts have resorted to extraordinary remedies. He has been enjoined from filing suits on behalf of other inmates, Green v. Wyrick, supra; has had severe restrictions imposed upon his right to file actions in forma pauperis, Green v. White, supra; has been prohibited from filing mandamus actions in the Court of Appeals attacking the regularity of District Court proceedings, In Re Green, supra, and has been convicted of criminal contempt and sentenced to prison for violating the district court's injunction against "writ writing" for other prisoners. In the Matter of Green, supra. Still, his activities continue without noticeable abatement.
One can only speculate about Green's true motives and purposes. One Court suggested that by swamping the court with frivolous suits, Green somehow hoped to force his own release from custody. Green v. Camper, supra at 759. Another considered it a scheme and plan to impede the judicial machinery and bring the court system to a halt. Green v. U. S. District Court, supra at 1037-8. In view of the stated aims of his "church,"9 one is entitled to wonder whether Green believes that each writ filed brings him that much closer to heaven. Perhaps the simple answer is that, like Loki in the fable,10 Green considers it his lot in life to taunt, trouble and harass the courts of this land, both state and federal.11
"... No one, rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the judicial process." Hardwick v. Brinson, 523 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1975). Green's continuing abuse of the judicial system is extremely well documented. He repeatedly demonstrates his contempt for the courts and for the law itself. See Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302, 303 (5th Cir. 1978). The pauper's affidavit is not a broad highway into federal court; the court retains discretion to dismiss suits in forma pauperis when convinced they are frivolous or malicious. Jones v. Ault, 67 F.R.D. 124, 127 (S.D.Ga.1974), aff'd 516 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1975); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In the causes styled Green v. Arnold, EP-80-CA-333, and Green v. U. S. A., EP-80-CA-335, leave to proceed in forma pauperis was improvidently granted, and should be withdrawn.
The complaint in Cause No. EP-80-CA-356 stands on a somewhat different footing. The filing fee was paid, so no leave to proceed in forma pauperis was requested.12 It is nevertheless subject to dismissal. The Respondents' motion to dismiss demonstrates that Green has previously filed a suit presenting the identical issues in the United States District Court for the District of Tennessee, which entered a judgment adverse to him on December 4, 1980 (Green v. McLeod, No. C-80-2180, Western District of Tennessee). If Green was dissatisfied with this result, his remedy was appeal. He is not entitled to file another suit in another district over issues already litigated. Therefore, as to Green, this action should be dismissed with prejudice. Barger v. Baltimore & O. Ry. Co., 130 F.2d 401, 402 (D.C.Cir.1942); Cooper Agency v. United States, 327 F.Supp. 948, 953 (D.S.C. 1971); Rule 41(b), F.R.Civ.P. As to Taylor, Aragon and Vallejos (if indeed they have any desire to be parties to this suit), dismissal without prejudice is appropriate in that they have made no effort to exhaust their administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons. Tarlton v. Clark, 441 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1971); Paden v. United States, 430 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1970). See Patsy v. Florida International University, 634 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
It is therefore ORDERED that in Causes numbered EP-80-CA-333 and EP-80-CA-335, the orders granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis be, and they are hereby, withdrawn and vacated, and those suits are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that, with respect to Petitioner Clovis Carl Green, Jr., Cause No. EP-80-CA-356 be, and it is hereby, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that, with respect to Petitioners Michael Taylor, Miguel Aragon, and Milton Vallejos, Cause No. EP-80-CA-356 be, and it is hereby, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
EXHIBIT A
LIST OF CASES FILED BY CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR
IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Number Style of Case
EP-80-CA-333 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v
Floyd Arnold, et al
EP-80-CA-334 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v
F. E. Arnold, et al
EP-80-CA-335 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v
United States of America, et al
EP-80-CA-336 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v
Norman A. Carlson, et al
EP-80-CA-355 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Floyd Arnold, Warden, et al
EP-80-CA-356 Michael Taylor, et al v.
Floyd Arnold, Warden, et al
EP-81-CA-003 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Deputy Clerk Mr. Martinez
EP-81-CA-004 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
United States of America
EP-81-CA-005 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Carlos Ortiz, Associate Warden, et al
EP-81-CA-006 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
F. E. Arnold, Warden, et al
EP-81-CA-007 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Carlos Ortiz, et al,
EP-81-CA-012 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
United States of America
EP-81-CA-013 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Floyd Arnold, et al
EP-81-CA-014 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Norman A. Carlson, et al
EP-81-CA-015 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Sherman Waltner, Unit Manager
EP-81-CA-016 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Regaldo, Segregation Unit Officer, et al
EP-81-CA-017 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Karen Schroeder, Case Manager, et al
EP-81-CA-018 Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.
Mail Room Officer, et al
EP-81-CA-019
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. State of Or.
...opinions. For a summary of Green's history of abuse, see, e.g., In re Green, 669 F.2d 779 (D.C.Cir.1981) (per curiam); Green v. Arnold, 512 F.Supp. 650 (W.D.Tex.1981); Green v. Camper, 477 F.Supp. 758 18 can sit down and write a lawsuit and feel like my pen's got oil on it, it's so easy," F......
-
Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank
...(b)(1).) The rationale is that there is a limit to how many causes of action an individual is likely to accrue. (See Green v. Arnold (W.D.Tex.1981) 512 F.Supp. 650, 651.) Wolfgram urges that an unsuccessful, colorable (i.e., nonfrivolous) action against the government should not "count" as ......
-
Green v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary
...actions against him by prison officials, transfers to other institutions, and various conditions of confinement. See Green v. Arnold, 512 F.Supp. 650, 651 (W.D.Texas 1981). In response to Green's attack on the judicial system, three circuit courts and one district court have taken the extra......
-
Green, In re
...post Church notices in Kentucky state prisons and all federal prisons denied; complaint dismissed as repetitive); Green v. Arnold, 512 F.Supp. 650, 651 & n.6 (W.D.Tex.1981) (noting many Church-related filings in Western District of Texas).Nearly a decade ago, Green filed a class action here......