United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Danville Division
Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge .
Cedrick Euron Draper (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se, filed two applications to proceed in
forma pauperis in this Court on March 15, 2018. The
accompanying Complaints represented Plaintiff's sixth and
seventh attempts to sue his former employer. I denied both
applications pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as his action
had been dismissed with prejudice on a prior occasion and he
had been instructed not to re-file the action. He ignored my
instructions, so I issued an Order to Show Cause why he
should not be sanctioned and enjoined from further filings in
this Court. [ECF No. 4.] Plaintiff appeared before me on
April 19, 2018, and was provided an opportunity to be heard.
After careful review and consideration, and for the reasons
stated herein, Plaintiff will be sanctioned pursuant to Rule
11 and enjoined from further filings in this district for two
years unless he prepays the applicable filing fee.
has a history of litigation against every perceived injustice
he faces. His first foray into federal practice began with a
Complaint and application to proceed without prepaying fees
or costs, commonly referred to as an application to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP application”),
filed on March 30, 2017. Draper v. Muy Pizza Hut
Southeast LLC, et al., No. 4:17cv00018 (W.D. Va. 2017)
(Kiser, J.). I denied his IFP application because the
proposed complaint was facially deficient. Nevertheless, I
permitted him the opportunity to pay the filing fee if he
wished to proceed. At Plaintiff's request, I granted him
an extension to pay the filing fee. While awaiting payment,
Plaintiff submitted the following motions and pleadings:
Motion for Deferral Fee Processing; Motion for Actions Within
the Process of a Legal Compulsory/Permissive Joinder for
Additional Defendants to Appear to Process Within the Case
Filing Upon U.S. District Court Complaint Facts &
Information; Amended Complaint; Motion to Grant EM/ECF
Access; Motion for Reconsideration on his IFP application;
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint; Motion
to Amend Caption Information of the Defendant Information;
Motion to Amend Caption Information of the Main Plaintiff v
Defendant Information; Brief/Memorandum re: Discrimination;
Motion to Amend Defendants Last Names Upon Discovery of
Information; Motion to Amend/Correct Defendant's Name;
Notice of Current Financial Circumstances; Motion to Amend
First Amended Amount of the Amended Complaint; Motion to
Amend Amended Complaint's Exhibits and Attachments;
Brief/Memorandum as to Virginia Employment Commissioner
Hearing; and Additional Evidence. Eventually, Plaintiff
tendered a check to the clerk. That check was ultimately
returned by Plaintiff's bank for insufficient funds.
Because the filing fee was not paid, Plaintiff's action
was dismissed. He then filed a Motion to Re-Open the Case,
two letters regarding the unpaid filing fee, Additional
Evidence, a Motion to Reconsider my Order denying his Motion
to Re-Open the Case, and a Notice of Intent. His Notice of
Intent stated: “Plaintiff will refile unless
consideration of information released is not a reflection of
proceeding with the new evidence and the initial amended
complaint from beginning filed complaint.” Id.
[ECF No. 40].
23, 2017, Plaintiff tried his suit again. See Draper v.
Muy Pizza Hut Southeast LLC, et al., No. 4:17cv00042
(W.D. Va. 2017) (Kiser, J.). Again, his IFP application was
denied, but he was given the opportunity to pay the filing
fee. After filing a Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to
Amend Plaintiff's Name, Motion Requesting Another Judge
Oversee the Case, Additional Evidence, Amended Complaint,
Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Fee, Motion to File a
Second Amended Complaint, and Motion for Pretrial Conference,
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The case was
third attempt, Draper v. Muy Pizza Southeast LLC, et
al., No. 4:17cv00056 (W.D. Va. 2017) (Kiser, J.),
Plaintiff filed a Complaint, IFP application, Notice of
Appearance, Notice of Filing Motion for Joinder and
Supporting Memorandum, Motion for Joinder, and Additional
Evidence on August 14-15, 2017. Because he had delayed in
filing his Complaint (not counting the time his prior actions
had been pending), more than ninety (90) days had elapsed
since he received his Notice of Right to Sue from the Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission. Accordingly, I denied
Plaintiff's IFP application and dismissed his case
because the applicable statute of limitations had run.
fourth and fifth attempts were filed four days later, on
August 18, 2017, against “Muy Pizza Southeast
LLC” as opposed to “Muy Pizza Hut Southeast
LLC.” See Draper v. Muy Pizza Southeast LLC, et
al., No. 4:17cv00061 (W.D. Va. 2017) (Kiser, J.);
Draper v. Muy Pizza Southeast LLC, et al., No.
4L17cv00062 (W.D. Va. 2017) (Kiser, J.). In both cases, I
granted Plaintiff's IFP application but dismissed the
actions with prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to
correct the flaws of his prior filings and the statute of
limitations barred his actions. I also stated in my Orders:
“Plaintiff may not re-file this action.” He was
also advised, “[A]ny future filings in any case in this
court must comply with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11. Those that do not may result in
monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.” Undeterred,
Plaintiff attempted a sixth and seventh action against his
former employer on March 15, 2018. See Draper v. Muy
Pizza Southeast LLC, No. 4:18cv00012 (W.D. Va. 2018)
(Kiser, J.); Draper v. Muy Pizza Southeast LLC, No.
4:18cv00013 (W.D. Va. 2018) (Kiser, J.). IFP applications in
both cases were denied. In case number 4:18cv00012, after his
IFP application was denied, Plaintiff filed the following:
Additional Evidence; Motion to Seal Answer to Order; Motion
to Quash; Motion to Amend Misnomer of Complaint; Motion to
Reopen Case; and an Informal Bill of Exception. He then
appealed the denial of his Motion to Reopen the Case. In case
number 4:18cv00013, I issued the present Show Cause Order.
response to the dismissal of case number 4:18cv00012,
Plaintiff sued this Court. Draper v. United States
District Court for the Western District of Virginia Danville
Division, No. 4:18cv00017 (W.D. Va. 2018) (Kiser, J.). I
denied his IFP application and dismissed his action.
seems that Pizza Hut is not the only employer with whom
Plaintiff has issues. In August of 2017, Plaintiff filed
three actions against Virginia Mirror Company. The first,
filed August 14, was accompanied by a Notice of Appearance, a
Notice of Filing Motion for Joinder and Supporting
Memorandum, a Motion for Joinder, an Affidavit in Support of
his Motion for Joinder, and Additional Evidence. See
Draper v. Virginia Mirror Co., et al., No. 4:17cv00057
(W.D. Va. 2017) (Kiser, J.). After his action was dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state
a claim (due to a lack of jurisdiction over the alleged
causes of action), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
without leave of the Court. His second and third cases
against Virginia Mirror were filed on August 18. See
Draper v. Virginia Mirror Co., et al., No. 4:17cv00063
(W.D. Va. 2017) (Kiser, J.); Draper v. Virginia Mirror
Co., et al., No. 4:17cv00064 (W.D. Va. 2017) (Kiser,
J.). Both cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and
Plaintiff was again advised about potential sanctions under
River Valley Pizza, LLC, also came into Plaintiff's
crosshairs. He has filed three suits against it. See
Draper v. New River Valley Pizza, LLC, et al., No.
7:17cv00380 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2017) (Urbanski, J.);
Draper v. New River Valley Pizza, LLC, et al., No.
7:17cv00382 (W.D. Va. Aug. 16, 2017) (Urbanski, J.);
Draper v. New River Valley Pizza, LLC, et al., No.
7:18cv00111 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2017) (Conrad, J.). The first
two were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the third
of 2018 brought three more lawsuits against one defendant.
See Draper v. TMC Finance LLC, No. 6:18cv00035 (W.D.
Va. Mar. 15, 2018) (Moon, J.) (dismissed as frivolous);
Draper v. TMC Finance LLC, No. 6:18cv00036 (W.D. Va.
Mar. 16, 2018) (Moon, J.) (ruling on IFP pending); Draper
v. TMC Finance LLC, No. 6:18cv00037 (W.D. Va. Mar. 16,
2018) (Moon, J.) (dismissed as frivolous).
addition to the above-referenced cases, Plaintiff filed
several other lawsuits. His case against Geico was transferred
to the Eastern District of Virginia. Draper v. Geico
Secure Insurance Company, No. 4:18cv00014 (W.D. Va. Mar.
15, 2018) (Kiser, J.). When a his two cases against the
United States Postal Service were removed to federal court
from the Charlottesville General District Court, see
Draper v. United States Postal Serv., No. 3:18cv00009
(W.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2018) (Conrad, J.), Draper v. United
States Postal Serv., No. 3:18cv00010 (W.D. Va. Feb. 12,
2018) (Conrad, J.), he sued the Charlottesville General
District Court for violating the Administrative Procedures
Act. Draper v. Charlottesville General District
Court, No. 3:18cv00022 (W.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2018) (Conrad,
J.) (ruling on IFP pending).
cases include: Draper v. Pinkerton
Chevrolet-Lynchburg, No. 6:18cv00049 (W.D. Va. Apr. 3,
2018) (Moon, J.) (dismissed as frivolous), Draper v.
Adecco USA, Inc., No. 6:18cv00050 (W.D. Va. Apr. 3,
2018) (Moon, J.) (dismissed as frivolous); Draper v.
Skaff, No. 7:18cv00159 (W.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2018)
(Urbanski, J.) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); and
Draper v. Henry County General District Court and Halifax
County General District Court, No. 4:18cv00021 (W.D. Va.
Apr. 16, 2018) (Kiser, J.) (dismissed as frivolous).
date, Plaintiff has filed 26 cases in the Western District of
Virginia. Eighteen have been dismissed by the court; five
remain pending; two were voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff;
and one was transferred to another court.
result of his refusal to comply with this court's
directions and his abuse of the IFP statute, I issued an
Order to Show Cause as to why he should not be sanctioned and
enjoined from further filings in this court. I set the matter
for a hearing on April 19, 2018, at which time Plaintiff
appeared and presented his argument. This matter is now ripe
Rule 11 Sanctions
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 authorizes sanctions
against a party, even an unrepresented one, who files a
frivolous pleading. “[A]n argument constitutes a
frivolous legal position for Rule 11 sanctions if, under the
objective standard of reasonableness, it is clear . . . that
there is no chance of success and no reasonable argument to
extend, modify, or reverse the law as it stands.”
Morley v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 66 F.3d 21, 25 (2nd Cir.
1995) (quoting Caisse Nationale de Credit
Agricole-CNCA, New York Branch v. Valcorp, Inc., 28 F.3d
259, 264 (2nd Cir. 1994)). This objective standard
“requires no bad faith or otherwise culpable state of
mind.” In re Farhid, 171 B.R. 94 (N.D. Cal.
1994) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32,
46- 48 (1991)). The application of Rule 11 must be made in
conjunction with and to further the rule's central
purpose: “to deter baseless filings in the District
Courts and thus . . . streamline the administration and
procedures of the federal courts.” Cooter &
Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990).
to Plaintiff's various actions against Muy Pizza Hut
Southeast LLC, it is important to consider his allegations in
each action. In his first case, Plaintiff alleged:
Verbal and Non-verbal communications methods within the
General Manager's management performance upon my working
position with the Ridgeway Virginia store single-handily
separate my individual placement physically and mentally on
the count of several events to distinguish an