Tyler, In re

• Decision Date: 28 January 1988
• Docket Number: 87-2259,87-8153,Nos. 87-8149,s. 87-8149
• Citation: 839 F.2d 1290
• Parties: In re Billy Roy TYLER, Petitioner.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1290

839 F.2d 1290

In re Billy Roy TYLER, Petitioner.

Nos. 87-8149, 87-8153, 87-2259.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 23, 1987.

Decided Jan. 28, 1988.

No brief filed for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Billy Roy Tyler appeals from the en banc order of the district court ¹ entered on its own motion on August 25, 1987, 677 F.Supp. 1410, limiting him to a single monthly filing in that court, as well as prescribing certain conditions precedent to the filing of future lawsuits and prohibiting him from submitting pleadings on behalf of other prisoners. Tyler appealed this ruling in case No. 87-2259, sought mandamus relief of the order in case No. 87-8153, and sought mandamus to compel speedier disposition of his filings in case No. 87-8149. Because all three cases essentially seek review of the district court's order, we consolidate them and dispose of all three in this opinion.

We find no error of fact or law in the district court's order, and we affirm it pursuant to 8th Cir.R. 14. Because we endorse the policy and rationale of the district court, we attach the order to this opinion as Appendix I.

APPENDIX I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

IN RE BILLY ROY TYLER

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. Billy Roy Tyler, a former inmate at the Nebraska State Penitentiary in Lincoln, has filed numerous complaints in this court alleging that his civil rights have been violated by the defendants named in the suits. He has engaged in practices which have been abusive to this court and its personnel, and has caused unnecessary administrative expenses in the handling of his cases, as well as delays in the handling of others. For these reasons, the court takes it upon itself to address the abuses of Mr. Tyler's actions, and impose appropriate sanctions.

Since January 1, 1986 Mr. Tyler has filed 113 cases in this court in his own name as petitioner or plaintiff. Prior to January 1, 1986 he had filed 36 such lawsuits. In addition to those in which he is a named plaintiff, he also has drafted innumerable complaints in behalf of other inmates at the Nebraska State Penitentiary or in those institutions in which he has been confined. In all cases he has been granted leave to file such complaints without the prepayment of costs or filing fees, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915. According to records in the office of the clerk, 51 of Mr. Tyler's cases were dismissed without service of summons upon a finding that they were either frivolous or had at least failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Six were dismissed on motions of the defendants before trial. Thirty-one cases were dismissed on the plaintiff's motion before trial. Two were dismissed when the plaintiff refused to appear at a pretrial conference with the magistrate and defense counsel at the penitentiary. Mr. Tyler filed no less than 17 petitions for writs of habeas corpus, almost all of which challenged, on the same grounds, the conviction for which he is serving a sentence. Of his civil rights cases, only two have gone so far as to require a trial, one of which was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff's case, and the other resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for nominal damages in the amount of $5.00.

In addition to the above information which is taken from the files in the office of the clerk, the court further notes that in many cases Mr. Tyler has sought to appeal orders of the magistrate to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is clearly not permitted; sought to appeal interlocutory orders of the trial judges to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; and otherwise attempted to appeal nearly every disposition of his cases to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. All of such appeals have been unsuccessful to date.

Further, Mr. Tyler has in his letters to the court, pleadings filed with the court, and statements made during court sessions, used foul and disgusting language, calling court staff, including deputy and assistant clerks, law clerks, secretaries, magistrates, and judges, racially derogatory names, hurled epithets, and otherwise utilized abusive language disrespectful of the court and all in his presence.

In those cases where Mr. Tyler's requests for the appointment of counsel have been granted, appointed counsel have been similarly treated, and in all cases have been either dismissed by Mr. Tyler or have been granted leave to withdraw in response to his scorn.

Mr. Tyler has on several occasions named parties as defendants in his complaints who have in no way been involved in the events allegedly giving rise to his complaints, including all of the judges of this court, the magistrates of this court, the governor of the State of Nebraska, his former attorneys, and even "Li'l Red Riding Hood." No attempt has been made in many of his complaints to make any specific allegations with respect to every individual named as a defendant in his complaints, thus requiring the dismissal of such complaints as frivolous.

In complaints drafted by Mr. Tyler for signature by other inmates, his propensity to name uninvolved parties as defendants and to make broad, conclusional allegations against those named has caused other inmates to suffer the dismissal of claims found to be frivolous. Whether careful and deliberate drafting of specific complaints would have caused such cases to go forward is not known, of course, but in most instances in which Mr. Tyler was the author of the complaints, it is apparent that his services were of no great assistance to the inmate plaintiffs he was seeking to help.

Despite this court's orders dismissing his redundant habeas corpus actions challenging the conviction for which he is serving a sentence, he continued to submit additional petitions seeking writs of habeas corpus challenging the same conviction on the same grounds.

Recently Mr. Tyler wrote the court requesting that all of his then-pending actions be dismissed in order that he might be favorably considered for an interstate transfer. More than 30 such cases were dismissed in response to that request. The interstate transfer has apparently now been granted, but his steady flow of complaints has resumed, now originating from Stillwater, Minnesota, the place of his present confinement. Pending the issuance of this memorandum and order, several complaints submitted for filing have been retained in order that they may be treated in accordance with the terms of this order. The fact that Mr. Tyler was willing to so readily dismiss voluntarily over 30 pending cases in this court on the hope that doing so would cause him to be transferred to another prison indicates that he was not seriously pursuing the claims raised in those cases.

The Supreme Court found in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), that an inmate in a state prison has a constitutional right, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to access to the courts. However, there is "no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious." Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir.1981). As recently explained by one court faced with a similar situation,

The Court has authority to control and manage matters pending before it. This includes trial and pre-trial actions. Turner v. American Bar Association, 407 F.Supp. 451 (N.D.Tex.1975); In re Sarelas, 360 F.Supp. 794 (D.C.Ill.1973), aff'd, 497 F.2d 926 (7th Cir.1974). The need for such control bears noting. First, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Three fundamental goals underlie this mandate; maintaining the quality of justice, avoiding delay, and improving the efficiency of dispute resolution. In order to secure these values, we must recognize that judicial resources are limited in the short run and need to be protected from wasteful consumption. See, Hanson v. Goodwin, 432 F.Supp. 853 (W.D.Wash.1977). Frivolous, bad faith claims consume a significant amount of judicial resources, diverting the time and energy of the judiciary away from processing good faith claims. See, e.g., In re Green, 598 F.2d 1126 (8th Cir.1979).

The most apparent effect of excessive litigation is the imposition of unnecessary burdens on, and the useless consumption of, court resources. See, In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F.Supp. 1237, 1242 (D.Conn.1983).... As caseloads increase, courts have less time to devote to each case. A lack of adequate time for reflection threatens the quality of justice. See, Franklin v. Oregon, 563 F.Supp. 1310, 1319 (D.Or.1983). Second, long delays in adjudication create public dissatisfaction and frustration with the courts. Such delays also result in the unfortunate continuation of wrongs and injustices while the cases that would correct them sit on court calendars. Third, abusive litigation results in prolonged, repetitive harassment of defendants causing frustration and often extraordinary and unreasonable expenditures of time and money defending against unfounded claims.

Defendants have a right to be free from harassing, abusive, and meritless litigation. See, Theriault v. Silber, 574 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.1978). Federal courts have a clear obligation to exercise their authority to protect litigants from such behavior. Chatmon v. Churchill Trucking Co., 467 F.Supp. 79 (D.Mo.1979). The Court may, in its discretion, place reasonable restrictions on any litigant who files non-meritorious actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally abuses judicial process. Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10th Cir.1981). These restrictions may be directed to provide limitations or conditions on the...