Dantzler v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
810 F. Supp. 2d 312
D.D.C.2011Background
- Dantzler, an African-American HPD officer, was terminated in February 1998 for alleged on-duty sleeping and insubordination.
- He appealed to the Hammond Civil Service Board but received no hearing in 1998; later proceedings span multiple federal cases.
- From 2000 onward, Dantzler pursued several Title VII and §1983 claims in federal courts, many dismissed or denied on various grounds.
- In 2009, Judge Africk in the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an injunction barring the plaintiff from filing related to HPD termination without leave to file.
- Dantzler filed three related actions in this District Court (DC) alleging discrimination, mandamus relief, and conspiracy claims against federal and local defendants.
- The court sua sponte or on motion dismissed these three DC actions as violating Judge Africk’s injunction and for vexatious filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should appoint counsel for a pro se plaintiff | Dantzler seeks counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). | Counsel not warranted given lack of merit and plaintiff's ability to proceed pro se. | Denied; no per se right to counsel; factors favoring denial. |
| Whether the case should be dismissed due to an injunction against filing | Africk injunction should not apply in this court. | Injunctive order prohibits filing related to HPD termination without leave; applicable here. | Dismissed; cases filed in violation of Judge Africk's injunction. |
| Whether the three DC actions were properly dismissed as abusive filings | Claims present novel issues needing review. | Nearly identical to prior Louisiana actions; repetitive, abusive, and barred by injunction. | Dismissed as abusive under injunctive order and related standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poindexter v. FBI, 737 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (couns el appointment requires court discretion and analysis of several factors)
- Urban v. United Nations, 768 F.2d 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (injunctive remedies to protect court integrity while preserving access to courts)
- In re Green, 669 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (district court may enjoin abusive litigants from filing without permission)
- Sassower v. Barr, 986 F.2d 546 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (repetitive or frivolous filings may justify dismissal and injunctions)
- Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (protective measures against frivolous litigation; standards for injunctive relief)