Bowling v. Willis ( 2021 )

Case: 19-40914 Document: 00515948059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 22, 2021
No. 19-40914
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Wanda L. Bowling,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Greg Willis, in his Official and Individual Capacity,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-610
Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Wanda L. Bowling filed this action against her former spouse and eight
other individuals, including Greg Willis, for federal claims related to her
ongoing divorce proceedings in Texas state court. She asserted her former
spouse misappropriated her assets and the other named defendants
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40914 Document: 00515948059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
No. 19-40914
participated in that conduct during, or subsequent to, the divorce. The
district court ruled some of her claims were time-barred, others barred by
prosecutorial and sovereign immunity, and others lacking a plausible basis for
relief.
Willis moved for sanctions against Bowling and a declaration she was
a vexatious litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The court agreed, and
imposed a pre-filing injunction, prohibiting Bowling from filing further
claims without leave of court.
Proceeding pro se, Bowling contests the injunction through an
interlocutory appeal, contending: the court abused its discretion in declaring
her to be a vexatious litigant; the scope of the injunction is overbroad; there
is no real and immediate threat of future injury; and maintenance of the pre-
filing injunction will deprive her of a federal remedy, which, she asserts, may
only be vindicated in federal court. A pre-filing injunction is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 2002).
District courts have inherent power to impose pre-filing injunctions
“to deter vexatious, abusive, and harassing litigation”. Baum v. Blue Moon
Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 2008). The injunction “must be
tailored to protect the courts and innocent parties, while preserving the
legitimate rights of litigants”. Id. (citation omitted). The injunction
prohibits Bowling removing her state-court divorce proceeding to federal
court or filing any civil action related to the divorce; it does not apply to
current or pending matters, but only future cases; and Bowling may still file
any otherwise-prohibited matter upon obtaining leave of court pursuant to
the injunction. She has not shown the court abused its discretion.
Bowling also claims the court erred by: striking her first amended
complaint; granting four defendants’ motions to dismiss; and failing to
consider her second amended complaint. Our court lacks jurisdiction to
2
Case: 19-40914 Document: 00515948059 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
No. 19-40914
consider these issues because they are not interlocutory orders. See 28
U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.
3