Case: 17-11665 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11665
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:98-cv-02659-CC
EDWARD L. REASE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AT&T CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 14, 2018)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-11665 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 2 of 8
Edward Rease (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion for leave to file a motion to amend the judgment to correct
either clerical mistakes or mistakes arising from oversight or omission. After
careful review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed this employment-discrimination action in September
1998. Plaintiff alleged that his former employer, AT&T Corporation (“AT&T”),
discriminated against him when it failed to promote him to more than 100 positions
for which he had applied. He also alleged claims for retaliatory discharge. The
district court resolved most of the claims through summary judgment, and Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed others. Ultimately, only four claims remained for trial.
On the first day of trial, Plaintiff informed the district court that he had not
subpoenaed any witnesses. The district court gave Plaintiff a two-day extension in
which to subpoena witnesses. Plaintiff failed to do so and, when the court
reconvened, Plaintiff informed the court that, although he believed he had a
meritorious case, he would not be able to present it without witnesses.
The district court construed Plaintiff’s comments as a motion for voluntary
dismissal and dismissed his remaining claims without prejudice. Shortly
thereafter, AT&T moved the district court to amend its dismissal without prejudice
2
Case: 17-11665 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 3 of 8
to a dismissal with prejudice. In November 2002, the district court granted
AT&T’s motion. Plaintiff appealed that decision.
Meanwhile, in September 2002—before the district court amended its
dismissal of Plaintiff’s four remaining claims from one without prejudice to one
with prejudice—Plaintiff filed another action against AT&T and two other
defendants in which he brought many of the same claims he had previously
brought in this lawsuit. The district court dismissed all claims asserted against
AT&T in that second lawsuit, and Plaintiff never properly challenged that decision
on appeal. 1
In September 2003, we vacated the district court’s November 2002 order
dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s four remaining claims in this case and
remanded the case to the district court. On remand, the district court ordered
Plaintiff to file a motion to place the case back on the court’s trial docket. The
district court further indicated that failure to file such a motion could “result in
sanctions, including possible dismissal” of the action. Plaintiff filed the motion,
and the district court placed the case back on the trial docket.
1
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s order dismissing the claims he
asserted against AT&T in his second lawsuit. However, because Plaintiff’s claims against
another defendant remained pending, we dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. After the
district court disposed of all remaining claims in the case, Plaintiff filed a second notice of
appeal, but he did not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claims against AT&T in that
appeal.
3
Case: 17-11665 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 4 of 8
The district court subsequently reopened discovery at AT&T’s request.
AT&T later filed a second motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s four
remaining claims. The district court granted that motion and, on October 3, 2005,
the clerk entered judgment in favor of AT&T under Rule 58 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff then filed an untimely motion for reconsideration,
which the district court denied. Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal.
In February 2007, we dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal in part for lack of
jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was untimely to appeal from the
October 3, 2005, judgment. We later affirmed the district court’s denial of
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff has since filed a motion for reconsideration, a motion to reopen the
case, or both, in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013. The district court denied each
motion. Plaintiff appealed three of those denials. We affirmed the denial of
Plaintiff’s 2009 motion and dismissed his later appeals as frivolous.
In 2014, Plaintiff changed his approach and filed his first motion to correct
“clerical errors,” in which he asked the district court, among other things, to vacate
the October 3, 2005, judgment. The district court denied that motion. Plaintiff
then filed a notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration of that denial. The
district court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and directed Plaintiff not
4
Case: 17-11665 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 5 of 8
to file any additional motions or documents unless he first obtained leave of court
to do so.
On appeal, AT&T filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal as frivolous
and asked us to restrict Plaintiff’s filings in this Court. We granted AT&T’s
motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Although we denied AT&T’s request
that we restrict Plaintiff’s filings, we did so without prejudice to AT&T’s ability to
seek such relief in a later appeal if Plaintiff continued to file frivolous appeals,
motions, or other filings in this Court.
In 2015, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a motion to amend the judgment to
correct “clerical errors” so that his case would stand dismissed without prejudice.
The district court denied that motion. Plaintiff sought leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of that denial, which the district court also denied.
In February 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a motion
to amend the judgment to correct either clerical mistakes or mistakes arising from
oversight or omission. The district court denied that motion. Plaintiff now appeals
that denial.
II. DISCUSSION
In the order on appeal, the district court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave
to file a motion to amend the judgment to correct either clerical mistakes or
mistakes arising from oversight or omission. Plaintiff was required to seek leave
5
Case: 17-11665 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 6 of 8
to file his substantive motion because the district court previously entered an order
directing him not to file any additional motions or documents in the case unless he
first obtained leave of court to do so. The district court imposed that requirement
because Plaintiff had previously filed at least five post-judgment motions raising
the same or similar arguments as to why he should be permitted to bring his claims
in a new complaint. The district court specifically invoked “the interests of
judicial economy and the preservation of judicial resources.”
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to enforce its
earlier filing restriction by denying Plaintiff leave to file yet another post-judgment
motion. See, e.g., Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1074 (11th Cir. 1986)
(en banc) (recognizing that federal courts “have both the inherent power and the
constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs
their ability to carry out Article III functions” and that “[c]onsiderable discretion
necessarily is reposed in the district court” when it fashions a filing restriction).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff leave to file
his proposed motion to amend the judgment. The arguments that Plaintiff sought
to raise in his motion to amend are the same or similar to arguments that he has
previously raised numerous times in these proceedings. The district court has
consistently rejected those arguments, and we have dismissed Plaintiff’s three most
recent appeals as frivolous. Under these circumstances, the district court did not
6
Case: 17-11665 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 7 of 8
abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff leave to file yet another motion arguing
that the dismissal of his four remaining claims with prejudice after the district court
granted his motion to have the matter placed back on the trial docket was the result
of a clerical error or mistakes arising from oversight or omission.
The gravamen of Plaintiff’s argument was, and is, that upon our reversal of
the district court’s November 2002 order, in which the district court had amended
the original without-prejudice dismissal to a dismissal with prejudice, his claims
stood dismissed without prejudice and, therefore, the district court erred in
reopening discovery and granting AT&T’s second motion for summary judgment.
The district court rejected this argument on the merits in 2014, and we dismissed
Plaintiff’s appeal from that decision as frivolous. We also warned Plaintiff that, if
he continued to file frivolous and repetitious appeals, he would subject himself to
sanctions, including restrictions placed on his filings in this Court.
AT&T now moves for the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff
specifically to prevent him from filing further appeals and motions in this Court.
Because Plaintiff has continued to file frivolous and repetitious appeals, we grant
AT&T’s motion for sanctions.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion to amend the judgment to correct
7
Case: 17-11665 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 8 of 8
clerical mistakes or mistakes arising from oversight or omission. We GRANT
AT&T’s motion for sanctions and restrict Plaintiff’s future filings as follows. If
Plaintiff files any further appeals in case no. 1:98-cv-02659, the clerk is
DIRECTED to docket the filing, but Plaintiff must obtain this Court’s permission
to proceed. Until and unless the Court grants such leave, the clerk shall not accept
any further filings in the case, and all proceedings therein shall be STAYED
pending further order of the Court. Should the Court deny leave to proceed, the
clerk shall close the file and accept no further filings therein.
8