Walker v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 14 November 2022
• Docket Number: 1:19-cv-246-LG-RPM
• Parties: DEMARIO DONTEZ WALKER, #L1625, PLAINTIFF v. JONATHAN HUNT, et al. DEFENDANTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

DEMARIO DONTEZ WALKER, #L1625, PLAINTIFF
v.
JONATHAN HUNT, et al. DEFENDANTS

No. 1:19-cv-246-LG-RPM

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

November 14, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINON AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BEFORE THE COURT are the [260] Report and Recommendations entered in this matter by Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers, Jr. on July 12, 2022. In it, he recommends that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status be revoked and that he be sanctioned for his notorious and extensive history of meritless litigation in this and other Districts. Plaintiff has filed Objections. For reasons set forth more fully below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendations in part and agrees that Plaintiff's IFP status should be revoked. Further, Plaintiff shall be barred from filing any additional complaints or other initial pleadings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi unless he receives advance written permission to file such pleading by a judge in this District.

Background

This lawsuit is one of at least five dozen filed by Plaintiff and serial litigant, Demario Dontez Walker, since 2003.^[1] (R. & R., at 3-4, ECF No. 260). The

1

Magistrate Judge chronicles Plaintiff's history with the courts of this state, describing him as “a seasoned litigator incarcerated almost continuously since at least 2003.”^[2] (Id.). He has received at least nine strikes in the course of filing and prosecuting these lawsuits. (Id. at 4).

The Magistrate Judge describes how the nature and content of Plaintiff's allegations have changed over the years. Initially, Plaintiff “alleged common Section 1983 claims, such as conditions of confinement claims” (id. at 4) (listing cases), but these allegations began to morph after Plaintiff accumulated three strikes and suffered revocation of his IFP status in several lawsuits. (Id.) (listing cases). Around that time, Plaintiff encountered the three-strikes provision contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) as well as its “imminent danger” exception. (Id.).

In 2009, Plaintiff began to bring “shocking and disturbing allegations of sexual assault and sex slavery against a rotating cast of prison officials” to overcome the § 1915(g) imminent danger requirement. (Id. at 5). The Magistrate Judge documents Plaintiff's extensive history of dubious sexual assault allegations. (Id.) (collecting cases in which Plaintiff “allege[s] that numerous prison officials are sexually assaulting him and pimping him out in a prison sex slavery ring”). The action currently before the Court is but one instance of the kind.

The Complaint in this action was filed by Plaintiff in April 2019 against a slew of prison officials, who are allegedly liable for “subject[ing] Plaintiff and others

2

to a pattern of conduct consisting of sexual assaults, physical assaults, extortion and retaliation and failure to investigate adequately and intimidation.” (Compl., ¶ 9, ECF No. 1). Plaintiff explicitly invokes the imminent danger provision, representing that he “has been victim of ongoing violence and beatings and sexual assaults at MDOC.” (Id. at 4). Thereafter, over the lengthy and winding procedural history of this lawsuit, which need not be recounted here, Plaintiff has filed more than 65 motions in this case, including a large number of what the Magistrate Judge rightly labels “meritless” and “patently frivolous” filings. (R. & R., at 6, ECF No. 260).

The Magistrate Judge focuses particularly on a sequence of motions filed by Plaintiff in this case seeking to modify the case caption and change his name to “Kiriyama Zyreonia San Givonni.” (Id. at 6-7). To his original Motion Plaintiff attached what was ostensibly a legitimate order of the Lafayette County Chancery Court authorizing his name change. (Order, ECF No. 143) (citing Chancery Court Order, ECF No. 140-1). The Magistrate Judge, “[r]elying heavily on the chancery court order[,] . . . hesitantly granted” Plaintiff's motion to modify the case caption. (R. & R., at 7, ECF No. 260). Later, however, “the chancery court rescinded its earlier order after discovering that Walker defrauded it to obtain a name change” (Id.), causing the Magistrate Judge to vacate his order and revert the case caption to its original form. See Walker v. Hunt, No. 19CV246-LG-RPM, 2021 WL 6048911, at *3 (S.D.Miss. Dec. 20, 2021). The Magistrate Judge exemplifies Plaintiff's litigation habits with the following observation: “Walker generated five motions,

3

three Orders, and several motion responses to merely change the case caption with an order obtained through fraud.” (Id.).

Following the discovery of Plaintiff's fraud, the Magistrate Judge “reviewed several of Walker's past filings to determine whether this was an isolated incident,” paying “special attention to Walker's out-of-state filings.” (Id.). The result is the [260] Report and Recommendations currently before the Court. In it, the Magistrate Judge cites several cases in which Plaintiff made material representations to other courts around the country. (See Id. at 7-8) (citing, inter alia, Walker v. United States, No. 08CV3025(ENV)(LB), 2008 WL 3851589, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008); Walker v. United States, 298 Fed.Appx. 383, 384 (5th Cir. 2008); Walker v. Mobile Cty. Clerks, No. 1:09CV501-CG-C (S.D. Ala. Aug. 5, 2009); Walker v. United States, No. 4:08CV1555 (S.D. Tex. July 2, 2008); Walker v. Las Vegas Co. Clerks, et al., 2:08CV1602-RLH-LRL (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2008)). Many of these lawsuits misrepresent the extent of Plaintiff's litigation history or assert false whereabouts at times in which Plaintiff was incarcerated.

Hence, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff be sanctioned for the aforementioned behavior. (See generally R. & R., ECF No. 260). Plaintiff asked for two extensions of time to respond or object to the Report and Recommendations. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 261, 263). The Court granted each Motion in time, extending the deadline to October 4, 2022. Plaintiff filed [266] Objections on October 3. He also filed two [264] [268] Motions for the Court to Accept Previously Submitted Objections, referencing proposed Objections accompanying one of Plaintiff's

4

requests for an extension. (See Proposed Obj., ECF No. 261-2).^[3] The Court will consider both these Objections in rendering its decision as to the appropriate sanction for his behavior in this and other lawsuits.

II. Sanctions

A. Revocation of Plaintiff's IFP Status

First, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's IFP status be revoked, primarily because he “has failed to provide any corroborative documentary support for his allegations.” (R. & R., at 11, ECF No. 260) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff was granted “an opportunity to corroborate his Complaint allegations with documentary support” (Id. at 10), but he responded with nothing more than “his own statements,” a Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) filing determining that his allegations are “unsubstantiated,” and vague and conclusory affidavits of fellow inmates, even where he “was allowed to conduct-and received-extensive discovery in this case.” (Id. at 11). Second, and alternatively, the Magistrate Judge reasons that Plaintiff's IFP status should be revoked...