Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

835 F.2d 1145

Docket No. 87-8703.

Filipas v. Lemons

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Nov. 30, 1987.

Decided Dec. 16, 1987.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1987-12-16

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[I]t is clear that the plaintiffs are vexatious litigants who have filed many complaints concerning the same 1972 automobile accident. The district court entered an order requiring leave of court before the plaintiffs filed any further complaints. This requirement is the proper method for handling the complaints of prolific litigators, and the procedure does not violate the first amendment.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Futernick v. Sumpter Township

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on In re Green · Abdullah v. Gatto

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-12-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Riccard v. Prudential Insurance (2002), Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (1998)

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

24019871990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1146Peter Filipas, pro se.

¶2Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, KENNEDY, Circuit Judge, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

¶3ORDER

¶4The plaintiffs have filed two motions for pauper status on appeal from the district court’s order returning their complaint un-filed in this civil rights case. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After an examination of the record and the plaintiffs’ brief, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R. App.P. 34(a).

¶5As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is actually in the nature of a motion to affirm. Such motions are forbidden by Rule 8(a)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Therefore the motion to dismiss is denied.

¶6Turning to the merits, it is clear that the plaintiffs are vexatious litigants who have filed many complaints concerning the same 1972 automobile accident. The district court entered an order requiring leave of court before the plaintiffs filed any further complaints. This requirement is the proper method for handling the complaints of prolific litigators, and the procedure does not violate the first amendment. Abdullah v. Gatto, 773 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam); In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 785-86 (D.C.Cir.1981) (per curiam).

¶7After entry of the court’s order, the plaintiffs filed another complaint concerning the 1972 automobile accident. The court refused permission to file the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ request for pauper status. We agree with the conclusions of the district court for the reasons stated in its memorandum and order.

¶8The motions for pauper status are denied. The appeal is dismissed because it is frivolous and entirely without merit. Rule 9(b)(4), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

/835/f2d/1145 · .json · Public domain