United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
WILFRED L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
JUDGE FRANK D. CELEBREEZE, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Wilfred L. Anderson filed this action
against Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals Judge Frank
Celebreeze challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's
vexatious litigator statute, Ohio Rev. Code 2323.52(F)(2),
under which he was designated a vexatious litigator by an
Ohio court in March 2015. (ECF DKT #1 ¶ 1-2). On May 21,
2015, a civil protection order sought by Luann Mitchell was
issued against Anderson. He claims that his status as a
vexatious litigator prevents him from appealing the civil
protection order. (Id. ¶ 3-12).
reasons that follow, Anderson's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF DKT #2) is denied and this action is
is a familiar litigant in this Court as well as the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas and the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas. That litigation history is summarized in a
decision recently rendered by another branch of this court.
Anderson v. Gallagher, No. 1:19 CV 1072, 2019 WL
4071647 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2019). In that decision, Anderson
challenged the constitutionality of Ohio's vexatious
litigator statute and, as he has done repeatedly before,
challenged the Ohio court's determination that he is a
vexatious litigant. Id. at *1 (collecting cases).
The court in Anderson v. Gallagher found that:
This Court has repeatedly held that it does not have
jurisdiction to overturn a state court judgment, and cannot
interfere with on-going state court proceedings involving
matters of state law. ... This Court cannot rehear matters
that were already decided by the state courts and cannot
enjoin them from enforcing their judgments. Furthermore, the
Judges and the Courts are immune from damages. Regardless of
whether the Judges of this federal court agree or disagree
with the findings and judgments of the state courts, they
cannot consider the merits of Plaintiff's claims or grant
him relief. Nevertheless ... Plaintiff continues to file
cases in this Court ... trying to find a new procedural
loophole which will allow this Court to intervene and
overturn the state courts' judgments. ... In this case,
he filed a Notice of Constitutional Challenge. He hopes that
by obtaining this declaration, it will void the vexatious
litigant judgment in the state court case. In the end, the
answer is the same. This Court does not have jurisdiction to
grant the relief he is requesting.
Id. at *1-2 (internal citations omitted).
repeated filings in the Northern District of Ohio dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) caused the court in
Anderson v. Gallagher to observe that:
Up to this point, the Courts in this District have been
tolerant of Plaintiff's pro se filings; however,
there comes a point when we can no longer allow Plaintiff to
misuse the judicial system at tax payer expense. The filing
of frivolous lawsuits and motions strains an already burdened
federal judiciary. As the Supreme Court recognized:
“Every paper filed with the Clerk of ... Court, no
matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of
the [Court's] limited resources. A part of the
Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are
allocated in a way that promotes the interests of
justice.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184
(1989). Our ability to perform our duties is compromised when
we are forced to devote limited resources to the processing
of repetitious and frivolous filings. In re Sindram,
498 U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991).
Anderson, 2019 WL 4071647, at *2.
court in Anderson v. Gallagher then concluded that
Anderson had abused the privilege of proceeding in federal
court as a pauper by repeatedly filing frivolous, harassing
and duplicative lawsuits and denied Anderson's right to
proceed in that action without payment of the filing fee.
Id. (citing among authority In re McDonald,
489 U.S. 180, 184-85 (1989) (per curiam); Maxberry v.
S.E.C., 879 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam)).
case, Anderson again challenges his designation as a
vexatious litigator by the Ohio courts and the
constitutionality of Ohio's vexatious litigator statute.
Anderson asks this Court to order the Ohio Eighth District
Court of Appeals to hear his challenge to the lower court
decision designating him a “stalker.”
(See ECF DKT #1 ¶ 12-15). Like the cases filed
in the Northern District of Ohio that came before,
Anderson's claims in this case are the latest in a series
of failed efforts to challenge his designation as a vexatious
litigator by the Ohio courts. Anderson's persistent,
duplicative and frivolous filings in this regard constitute
an abuse of the privilege to proceed in forma
pauperis and his motion to do so in this case is denied.
In re McDonald, 489 U.S. at 184-85;
Maxberry, 879 F.2d at 224.