UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KEITH R. CALDWELL, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 18-353 (JEB)
DAVID J. SHULKIN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Keith R. Caldwell seeks more than $5 million in damages for allegedly
deficient medical care he received at the Bay Pines Medical Center, a facility operated by the
Department of Veterans Affairs in Bay Pines, Florida. See Compl. at 2, 30. Caldwell initially
brought these claims in the Middle District of Florida, where his Third Amended Complaint was
dismissed for failure to conform to the requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act. See
Caldwell v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Admin., 2015 WL 2356021 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2015), aff’d
sub nom. Caldwell v. Klinker, 646 F. App’x 842 (11th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff now seeks to pursue
his case in this Court, but his current effort faces an additional hurdle: he has been enjoined from
filing “any new civil action [in this District] without first seeking leave to file such complaint.”
Caldwell v. Obama, 6 F. Supp. 3d 31, 52 (D.D.C. 2013), appeal dismissed, No. 14-5085 (D.C.
Cir. 2014). Although Defendants dispute the merits of Caldwell’s claims and the
appropriateness of his choice of venue in their Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, the Court need
look no further than his failure to comply with the judicial orders of this District. The Court will
1
thus grant Defendants’ Motion and dismiss the case without prejudice; he may seek leave to
refile if he so wishes.
I. Analysis
According to Caldwell’s Complaint, he is a “90% disable[d] 22-year Army retired
officer,” Compl. at 26, who suffers from “blackout episodes” and mental-health issues. Id. at 9-
10. As a result of one such blackout episode, Caldwell broke his neck while attending a baseball
game in August 2014. Id. at 9. While in treatment for this injury, Caldwell was subsequently
diagnosed with “Shy Dragger [sic] Syndrome,” a neurological disease. Id. Plaintiff alleges a
number of instances of deficient care at the Bay Pines Medical Center, primarily regarding his
neck injury and diagnosis, as well as the Center’s purported failure to provide him adequate
mental-health treatment. Id. at 5-14. Naming VA healthcare employees, the (former) Secretary
of the VA, the agency itself, and the Bay Pines Medical Center as Defendants, Caldwell’s
Complaint raises claims under Florida’s Baker Act, the FTCA, 42 U.S.C. § 9501, and the “14th /
15th Amendment[s]” of the Constitution. Id. at 26-29.
Plaintiff’s filings, however, make no reference to his extensive prior dealings in this
District. As a result of prolonged employment- and tax-related litigation against his former
employer and various federal officials — including, inter alia, former President Barack Obama,
Chief Justice John Roberts, and the judges who presided over his cases, see Caldwell, 6 F. Supp.
3d at 41 — Judge Howell found that Caldwell’s “repeated filings of meritless complaints in this
district is both vexatious and harassing to the parties named as defendants and imposes an
unwarranted burden on the ‘orderly and expeditious administration of justice.’” Id. at 52
(quoting Urban v. United Nations, 768 F.2d 1497, 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). The court
consequently enjoined him from “any subsequent filing in the District Court for the District of
2
Columbia without first seeking leave from the Court” and “explain[ing] what new matters are
raised to warrant the filing of a new complaint.” Caldwell, 6 F. Supp. 3d at 52; see also No. 13-
1438, ECF No. 8 (2013 Order). In seeking leave, Caldwell was instructed to “include[] a concise
description of the allegations contained in such complaint.” 2013 Order.
Plaintiff does not dispute Defendants’ claim that he is the Keith R. Caldwell, Sr. subject
to the 2013 Order; indeed, his instant Complaint and his 2013 claims were filed using the same
phone number. See ECF No. 1 at 31 (listing 2018 phone number); No. 13-1438, ECF No. 1 at 37
(listing 2013 phone number). “[C]ourts faced with injunctions limiting access to the courts by
vexatious litigants [should] first address the applicability vel non of such injunctions.” Dantzler
v. EEOC, 810 F. Supp. 2d 312, 320 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Stitch v. United States, 108 F. App’x
32, 33 n.2 (2d Cir. 2004)). Given that the injunction remains in force and “[t]he proper course of
action is for courts to require parties to abide by the terms of pre-filing injunctions,” Perry v.
United States, 548 F. App’x 614, 616 (Fed. Cir. 2013), Plaintiff’s case will be dismissed without
prejudice. Caldwell remains free to file his claims in this District if granted leave by Chief Judge
Howell.
II. Conclusion
While the Court is cognizant that “Caldwell is a pro se litigant, rather than an attorney,
the application of the law remains the same.” Caldwell, 2015 WL 2356021 at *8. This includes
compliance with court orders. Since Plaintiff failed to seek leave prior to filing the current
action, his claims will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion shall issue this date.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: July 23, 2018
3