IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-20745
Summary Calendar
JEFFREY BALAWAJDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
---------------------
December 2, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and JONES, Circuit Judges.
HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:
Texas state prisoner Jeffrey Balawajder, #520106, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
as improvidently filed. He challenges the transfer of his case
to the Southern District of Texas and argues that the district
court abused its discretion by applying its policy of enforcing
sanctions imposed by other Texas federal district courts. We
AFFIRM.
Balawajder filed a 101-page pro se civil rights suit against
twenty-one defendants alleging interference with his religious
No. 97-20745
-2-
practices and denial of access to the courts. The complaint was
originally filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas. The district court referred the
complaint to the magistrate judge who ordered the lawsuit
transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 & 1406 to the Southern
District of Texas because Balawajder’s claims involved events
that took place at the Ellis I Unit, which is located in Walker
County in the Southern District of Texas. The order also noted
that Balawajder “has been warned and sanctioned many times” and
“has the experience to know where his lawsuits are to be filed.”
Accordingly, the order also warned Balawajder that “sanctions may
be imposed if he files any new lawsuits in this Court when there
is no basis for this Court having venue over the matter.”
The district court for the Southern District of Texas
entered an order dismissing Balawajder’s action, without
prejudice, as improvidently filed. In dismissing the lawsuit,
the district court pointed to Balawajder’s involvement in other
frivolous lawsuits. The court noted that in 1992 this court had
ordered that a sanction of $50 be imposed against Balawajder for
filing a frivolous appeal and that Balawajder had not paid this
sanction. The court further noted that the district court for
the Western District of Texas had dismissed a suit of
Balawajder’s, with prejudice, for contumacious conduct and had
ordered the district court clerk not to accept any further
pleadings from Balawajder without prior approval of a judge or
No. 97-20745
-3-
magistrate judge. Applying a Policy Statement implemented by the
Southern District on February 1, 1994, which adopted a policy of
enforcing sanction orders imposed by other Texas federal district
courts, and “[a]fter reviewing the pleadings filed by Balawajder
and in light of the sanctions imposed by [this court],” the
district court determined “that Balawajder should not be granted
permission to proceed with his civil rights action.” The court
dismissed the action, without prejudice, as improvidently filed.
Balawajder filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking
relief from final judgment. The magistrate judge issued an
amended memorandum and recommendation that Balawajder’s motion
for relief from final judgment, and other motions, be denied.
The magistrate judge noted that although Balawajder had, in fact,
paid the $50 sanction imposed by this court, said error on the
part of the district court was harmless and payment of the fine
“does not alleviate the stigma of that sanction.” The district
court entered a memorandum and order adopting the magistrate
judge’s amended recommendation over Balawajder’s objections and
ordering that the action be dismissed with prejudice. Balawajder
filed a timely notice of appeal.
Balawajder first challenges the transfer of his case to the
Southern District of Texas. A district court has the authority
to transfer a case in the interest of justice to another district
in which the action might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404,
1406. Section 1404 provides in pertinent part:
No. 97-20745
-4-
For the convenience of parties and witnesses,
in the interest of justice, a district court
may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been
brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “The district court has broad discretion in
deciding whether to order a transfer.” Caldwell v. Palmetto
State Sav. Bank, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987). The
magistrate judge transferred the case because Balawajder’s claims
arose out of events that had occurred at the Ellis I Unit, which
is located in Walker County in the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division. No abuse of discretion has been shown.
Balawajder’s challenge to the district court’s dismissal of
his case based on the Southern District’s policy of enforcing
sanctions imposed by other Texas federal district courts is also
unavailing. We review sanctions imposed upon vexatious or
harassing litigants by the district court for an abuse of
discretion. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.
1993). We have affirmed a district court’s sanction barring a
litigant from filing future civil rights complaints without the
prior consent of a district court or magistrate judge. Murphy v.
Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1994). Hitherto, we have not
addressed, in a published opinion, the propriety of one district
court enforcing a sanction order of another district court
pursuant to a local order. We have, however, considered this
issue in several unpublished opinions. In Clark v. United
States, No. 94-10899, slip op. at 2-3 (5th Cir. Apr. 4,
No. 97-20745
-5-
1995)(precedential unpublished opinion), the district court for
the Northern District of Texas dismissed the plaintiff’s case
because he had not paid a $50 sanction imposed by the district
court for the Southern District of Texas in a previous frivolous
civil rights action. This court affirmed the Northern District’s
application of “Miscellaneous Order No. 48, which permits `each
federal district court in Texas [to] honor the sanctions imposed
by another federal court in Texas.’” Id. at 2. In Murphy v.
Scott, No. 94-41355, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. May 22,
1995)(precedential unpublished opinion), this court upheld a
similar order authorizing the Eastern District to honor sanctions
imposed against pro se prisoners by other federal district
courts. Furthermore, in Umar v. McVea, No. 95-20890, slip op. at
1 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 1996)(nonprecedential unpublished opinion),
this court affirmed the Southern District’s policy of enforcing
sanctions imposed by other Texas federal district courts.
As we have previously noted, Balawajder has a long history
of involvement in frivolous litigation. See Balawajder v.
Parker, Nos. 94-50605 & 94-50666, slip op. at 5 n.2 (5th Cir. May
24, 1995)(precedential unpublished opinion). Had Balawajder been
proceeding in this case in forma pauperis, he would have been
barred by the three strikes rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly, the district court for the Southern District of
Texas did not abuse its discretion in honoring the sanction order
of the Western District of Texas and dismissing Balawajder’s
No. 97-20745
-6-
complaint.
AFFIRMED.