Johnson v. United States Postal Service
961 F.3d 181
| W.D. Okla. | 2020Background
- Plaintiff R. Wayne Johnson, a Texas prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a suit originally in an Oklahoma state court addressing prison mail service and related grievances.
- Federal defendants (agencies, judges, and employees) removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1442; the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Erwin for initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- Judge Erwin ordered an amended complaint; Johnson filed multiple incoherent filings and an amended complaint that failed to comply with Rule 8 and did not present a colorable claim.
- Johnson submitted additional pleadings attempting to add defendants and seeking recusal of the district judge; the filings were judged frivolous and failed to raise substantial issues.
- The district court noted Johnson’s long history of abusive litigation and prior application of the § 1915(g) “three strikes” rule and Texas court filing restrictions.
- The court adopted the Report & Recommendation, dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as frivolous, denied pending motions as moot, and ordered judgment of dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a colorable federal claim / complies with Rule 8 | Johnson alleges claims about mail service, removal, access to courts, and adds various defendants | Complaint is incoherent, fails Rule 8, and alleges no cognizable federal claim | Dismissed as frivolous; no colorable claim found (adopted R&R) |
| Whether recusal of the district judge is warranted | Johnson moved for recusal of the undersigned judge | No factual or legal basis shown for recusal; motion is frivolous | Recusal denied; motion raises no substantial issue |
| Whether the case should be remanded to state court | Plaintiff sought relief related to removal and venue | Federal defendants properly removed under § 1442; no basis shown for remand | No basis for remand; removal stands and case dismissed on merits/procedure |
| Whether Plaintiff may proceed IFP or otherwise continue despite prior sanctions/strikes | Plaintiff attempted to continue litigation and add claims/defendants | Court notes Johnson has prior strikes and vexatious-litigant sanctions; filings are abusive | Proceeding barred by lack of viable claims and procedural history; case dismissed under § 1915A(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Whatley, [citation="73 F. App'x 79"] (5th Cir. 2003) (finding Johnson had accumulated multiple strikes under § 1915(g))
- Johnson v. Sloan, 320 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. App. 2010) (Texas court designation of Johnson as a vexatious litigant)
- Johnson v. Harrison, 399 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App. 2013) (Texas appellate summary of sanctions and filing restrictions imposed on Johnson)