United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff Anthony Oliver is familiar-all too familiar-to the
federal courts. Earlier this year, the Court extended the
filing conditions it imposed on Oliver, based on his
apparently incorrigible litigation conduct. See Oliver v.
City of Pooler, et al., CV418-100, doc. 59 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 28,
2019). Oliver's appeal of that Order has been dismissed
for want of prosecution. See CV418-100, doc. 69 (S.D. Ga.
April 23, 2019) (Mandate of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissing the appeal). In
this case, defendant Lyft, Inc. has moved for an order
restricting plaintiff's further litigation nationwide.
See doc. 63 at 31. While the Court should decline to enjoin
Oliver's litigation to the extent that Lyft seeks, it
should impose restrictions on Oliver's filings with this
have labeled injunctions (in non-collective actions) that
purport to bind a litigant's conduct generally as both
innovative and “odd.” Samuel L. Bray, Multiple
Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harvard
L. Rev. 417, 418-420 (2017). But see Zayn Siddique,
Nationwide Injunctions, 117 Colum. L. Rev. 2095, 2097 (2017)
(concluding that “the reality is that nationwide
injunctions are far from ‘unprecedented'-they are a
regular feature of the equitable jurisprudence of federal
courts.”). Academic questions notwithstanding,
injunctive relief is discretionary. See, e.g., Winter v. Nat.
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) (“An
injunction is a matter of equitable discretion; it does not
follow from success on the merits as a matter of
course.”). The Eleventh Circuit has stated that
“[i]t is a bedrock principle” of equity that
injunctive relief should only be imposed “when
fundamental fairness and justice demand it.” See Coral
Springs Street Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320,
1340 (11th Cir. 2004). In this case, therefore, the Court
should decline to restrict Oliver's litigation- even
restricted to litigation against Lyft-nationwide.
however, well-settled that the Court has the authority to
protect itself against persistently frivolous litigation. As
has often been said before, frivolous filings, like
Oliver's, do nothing but impair this Court's ability
to adjudicate the legitimate claims of other litigants, and
the Court has the power and obligation to protect itself.
See, e.g., Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073-74 (11th
Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“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.”). It's obvious
that this Court's previous warnings have not deterred
Oliver from continuing to waste judicial resources in this
district. These cases demonstrate Oliver's willingness to
file cases elsewhere, avoid this Court's existing filing
restrictions, and thereafter transferring them to this Court.
comprehensive action is thus warranted here. The following
restrictions should apply:
1. In addition to paying the Court's filing fee, Oliver
must post a $1, 000 contempt bond with the Clerk of Court. In
this case, he should post the required bond within fourteen
days of the District Judge's adoption of this
recommendation, or as ordered by the District Judge. This
bond will be held by the Clerk and, if Plaintiff has
conducted the affairs in his case appropriately,
bond will be returned to him at its conclusion;
2. If Plaintiff fails to post a contempt bond, the Court will
review the Complaint and determine whether it states a claim
for relief that is plausible on its face, any such Complaint
will be DISMISSED without any further judicial action 30 days
from the date the Clerk receives the complaint, unless the
Court orders otherwise. This automatic dismissal of
insubstantial claims “will reduce the burden of
paper-moving and explanation-writing, conserving a little
judicial time for litigants who deserve attention.”
Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312, 315 (7th Cir.
1997). Thus, although the Court will read and consider any
future Complaint that plaintiff endeavors to file, it will
not necessarily enter an order addressing it. If no order is
forthcoming, then 30 after the Complaint's receipt the
Clerk shall, without awaiting any further direction, notify
Oliver that his case has been dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk shall not issue a summons on any complaint filed
without the required bond, without an order from the Court.
If Oliver posts the required bond, the Clerk shall process
the Complaint, including issuing the summons, according to
3. The Clerk shall not docket any further motions or papers
in this case. The Clerk also shall not docket any further
motions or papers in a case automatically dismissed pursuant
to the directive above except for a notice of appeal. Any
papers other than a notice of appeal shall be returned to
Oliver unfiled. If Oliver files a notice of appeal, the Clerk
shall forward a copy of this Report and Recommendation, the
final disposition of this case by the district judge, the
notice of appeal, and the dismissed complaint to the Court of
Appeals. Oliver shall remain responsible for appellate filing
fees or he may move this Court to grant IFP status on appeal.
4. To ensure that all future pleadings filed by Oliver are
properly consolidated for review, the Clerk shall personally
advise each deputy clerk of the Court's ruling in this
case and develop a procedure for ensuring that all future
complaints filed by Oliver are immediately assigned and
forwarded to the presiding district judge in this case,
regardless of which divisional clerk's office receives
and dockets the papers.
5. Oliver may file a motion to modify or rescind the
imposition of these restrictions no earlier than 1 year from
the date of this Report and Recommendation.
6. These filing restrictions do not apply to any criminal
case in which Oliver is named as a defendant or to any proper
application for a writ of habeas corpus.
7. Plaintiff must attach to any Complaint he files a signed
affidavit swearing that he has read Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 and will abide by its provisions.
8. These requirements shall apply to any action transferred
or removed to this Court, which Oliver files in another
United States District Court or state court. Upon the
docketing of the notice of removal or order transferring the
case, the Clerk shall notify Oliver of his obligation by
serving a copy of this Report and Recommendation and the
District Judge's final Order upon him. If Oliver fails to
post the required bond within fourteen days of service of the
notice of removal or the transfer order, the Clerk shall
follow the procedures outlined above for cases filed without
a contempt bond.
Lyft's motion to impose pre-filing restrictions on Oliver
should be GRANTED, in part. Doc. 63. As the imposition of
these conditions may cause Oliver to reconsider the prudence
of pursuing this action, all deadlines are STAYED pending the
District Judge's consideration of this Report and
Recommendation. The Clerk is ...