United States District Court, District of Columbia
STEVEN H. HALL, Plaintiff,
v.
KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES
E. BOASBERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Steven Hall has filed a barrage of pro se suits
related to his firing by the Department of Homeland Security
and a subsequent settlement. Feeling he was treated unfairly
during those proceedings -- despite having obtained $55, 000
-- Hall has continued to sue both his former attorney
Rosemary Dettling and various government officials, even as
he has repeatedly lost in state and federal court. Although
this Court dismissed Hall's latest case, he has recently
filed several additional lawsuits against Dettling in D.C.
Superior Court. Dettling now moves for an injunction to
require Plaintiff to obtain court consent before filing
future federal-court suits against her. Additionally, she
seeks to halt Hall's current proceedings against her in
the Superior Court. The Court will order Plaintiff to show
cause why an injunction should not issue in federal court,
but it will deny the Motion as it pertains to state court
because that is the appropriate venue for Dettling to seek
such relief.
I.
Background
Much
ink has already been spilled on the dispute between Hall and
Dettling. See Hall v. Nielsen, No. 18-461, 2018 WL
5840663 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2018); Hall v. Dep't of
Homeland Sec, 219 F.Supp.3d 112 (D.D.C. 2016), affd sub
nom. Hall v. Dettling, No. 17-7008, 2017 WL 2348158
(D.C. Cir. May 17, 2017). Just a few facts are relevant here.
DHS
placed Hall on administrative leave in 2013. See ECF
No. 12 (Am. Compl.), Exh. N (Facts) at 3. The agency then
indefinitely suspended and eventually terminated him.
Id at 5. Believing that his firing was the result of
retaliation and discrimination, Hall filed several complaints
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
Merit Systems Protection Board. Id. at 5. He hired
Dettling to represent him in these matters. Id.
Although Hall settled with DHS during the administrative
process, he believes he was given a poor deal. See,
e.g., ECF No. 28 (Pl. Opp.) at 13-15. His
dissatisfaction with both the underlying agreement and his
representation in the matter has spurred the flurry of
lawsuits that he has filed against both DHS and Dettling. See
Hall, 2018 WL 5840663, at *2 (noting that Plaintiff
“ha[d] filed eight cases in this jurisdiction” at
time of that Opinion).
Hall's
lawsuits against Dettling have not been confined to this
Court. On December 30, 2016, he brought claims for legal
malpractice in D.C. Superior Court. Id, App. A.
These proved unsuccessful, as Judge Jennifer Di Toro granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiffs
claims were non-meritorious. Id, App. A at *8-10.
Plaintiff then sued Dettling in this Court on July 2, 2018,
for breach of contract, malpractice, misrepresentation, and
other misconduct. See Am. Compl. at 5-7; ECF No. 8
(Mot. for Compulsory Joinder of Parties) at 2. On November 8,
2018, this Court dismissed the claims against Dettling,
holding that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred most of
Plaintiff s contentions because they had already been
addressed and rejected by Judge Di Toro. See Hall, 2018 WL
5840663, at *3-5. Although the Court chose to deny
Dettling's request for sanctions against Hall for
vexatious litigation, it cautioned that it might
“consider a pre-filing injunction should he continue to
sue Dettling for issues arising out of her legal
representation.” Id. at *6.
Dettling
now returns to the courthouse seeking that relief. While Hall
has not filed additional actions against her in
federal court, she has “received three new
complaints filed by Plaintiff in the DC Superior Court”
since her federal case concluded. See ECF No. 55
(Def. Am. Mot. For Pre-Filing Inj.) at 1. The suits include
claims of “Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Slander, and
Libel”; “Breach of Warranty/Special Deal”;
and “False Witness.” See ECF No. 54
(Def. First Mot. for Pre-Filing Inj.), Exh. A (Feb. 21, 2019,
Sup. Ct. Filing) at 4; Exh. B (Feb. 19, 2019, Breach of
Warranty/Special Deal Sup. Ct. Filing) at 3; Def. Am. Mot.,
Attach. 1 (Feb. 19, 2019, False Witness Sup. Ct. Filing) at
3. Dettling argues that this evidence of vexatious litigation
warrants an “[o]rder prohibiting Plaintiff from filing
further claims against Defendant without prior leave of the
Court.” Def. Am. Mot. at 1-2. She also requests that
this injunction should be presented to the D.C. Superior
Court, presumably to halt the most recent round of
proceedings there. Id. at 2.
II.
Analysis
Dettling
seeks injunctive relief in both federal and state court.
Although Hall's suits may prove equally burdensome in
either forum, this Court's analysis diverges based on the
venue where relief is sought. While the Motion for injunctive
relief in federal court may proceed, the Motion to halt
current and future state proceedings fails to clear the
higher bar for federal enjoinment of state proceedings set by
the Anti-Injunction Act.
A.
Federal-Court Relief
Dettling
asks this Court to require Plaintiff, prior to filing suit
against Dettling, to submit to the Court “(i) an
application for leave to file suit; (ii) a copy of the
accompanying order; and (iii) a notarized affidavit or
declaration stating that the matters raised in the lawsuit
have not been raised or decided in any other lawsuit, are
brought in good faith, and are not for the purpose of
harassment.” See Def. Am. Mot. at 2. Relief of
this type is permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11(c)(1), which allows a court to sanction parties for
pleadings or motions that “harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(1). Additionally, the All Writs Act
reinforces this Court's ability to issue “all writs
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
Such
relief, however, is not dispensed in gross. This Circuit has
acknowledged that pre-filing injunctions “‘remain
very much the exception to general rule of free access to the
courts,' and ‘the use of such measures against
a pro se Plaintiff should be approached with
particular caution.'” In re Powell 851 F.2d 427,
431 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting Pavilonis v. King, 626
F.2d 1075, 1079 (1st Cir. 1980)). “In considering
whether a pro se litigant should be enjoined from
filing suit, the litigant must ‘at least[] be provided
with the opportunity to oppose' the injunction, and the
Court must ‘make substantive findings as to the
frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's
actions.'” Powell v. Davis, No. 18-297,
2018 WL 5621491, at *3 (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 2018) (quoting In
re Powell 851 F.2d at 431). The appropriate next step,
therefore, is to allow Hall the opportunity to oppose the
pre-filing injunction sought in federal court. The Court can
then make the required determination, keeping in mind
“both the number and content” of Hall's
filings thus far to decide if it is necessary to enjoin
future federal proceedings in the manner sought. See In re
Powell 851 F.2d at 431.
B.
State-Court Relief
To the
extent Dettling also asks this Court to enjoin state-court
proceedings, its power to issue such injunctions is further
limited by the AIA and federalism principles. The AIA
provides that “[a] court of the United States may not
grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State Court
except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where
necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or
effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The
Supreme Court has held that these exceptions should be
construed narrowly, and “[p]roceedings in state courts
should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by
intervention of the lower federal courts.” Atl.
Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs,
398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970). Because “the ...