McDonald v. Blackburn et al, No. 3:2014mc00916 - Document 6 (M.D. Tenn. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER: Accordingly, the pending motions in this case (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5) are DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the 2011 Order. It is so ORDERED. This is a final judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 7/18/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

Download PDF
McDonald v. Blackburn et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION DR. JESSIE D. McDONALD, PhD, Plaintiff, v. CHERYL BLACKBURN, Judge, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:14-mc-0916 Judge Trauger ORDER Plaintiff Jessie D. McDonald has filed in this Court a clearly frivolous complaint against defendants who are largely immune from the relief sought (ECF No. 1). Also pending are the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2); motion for extension of time within which to pay the filing fee (ECF No. 3); motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 4); and motion for a copy of a transcript (ECF No. 5). The plaintiff, however, is subject to filing restrictions imposed by orders entered by this court in September 2005 and June 2011. See McDonald v. Summers, No. 3:05-cv-0243 (M.D. Tenn.) (Sept. 15, 2005 Memorandum and Order, Docket Entry No. 25 (“2005 Order”); and June 13, 2011 Memorandum and Order, Docket Entry No. 68 (“2011 Order”)), aff’d sub nom McDonald v. Cooper, 471 F. App’x 494 (6th Cir. 2012). In the 2005 Order, the undersigned barred the plaintiff from filing any future civil actions in forma pauperis. In the 2011 Order, the court assessed a $1,000 sanction against the plaintiff for continuing to file frivolous pleadings in violation of Rule 11 and the court’s prior orders. In addition, the court barred the plaintiff from filing “any future civil actions in this court until all outstanding sanctions in this and other cases are paid,” and directed that any future cases filed by the plaintiff not be accepted absent an order by a district judge allowing such filing. (2011 Order at 6.) The undersigned has confirmed with the Finance Department of this court that the plaintiff has made no payments toward the $1,000 sanction ordered in July 2011. Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, the pending motions in this case (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5) are DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the 2011 Order. The court is also aware that the plaintiff recently filed a different and unrelated civil action in this court that was assigned to Chief Judge Haynes. The plaintiff is given notice, again, that he may be subject to criminal contempt proceedings if he embarks upon another campaign of frivolous filings in this court, as set forth in the 2011 Order. It is so ORDERED. This is a final judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Aleta A. Trauger United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.