UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENZEL EARLY, Case No. 25-13338

Plaintiff, F. Kay Behm v. U.S. District Judge

LINDA FERRIS,

Defendant. ___________________________/

ORDER ENTERING FILING RESTRICTIONS

A district court has discretion to impose pre-filing restrictions in cases “with a history of repetitive or vexatious litigation.” United States ex rel. Odish v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,

, 750 (6th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,

(6th Cir. 1998)). But before imposing such restrictions, due process requires the court to give the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Puckett v. Ain Jeem, Inc., No. 24-5282/5537, 2025 LX 191371, at *11 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025). This court earlier found that Plaintiff Denzel Early had likely engaged in a pattern of filing repetitive, frivolous, and/or vexatious cases in this district. The court therefore ordered Early to show cause in writing why the court should not enter pre-filing restrictions on

actions in this district under Local Rule 5.2. No response was received. Because the court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in a pattern of filing repetitive, frivolous, or vexatious cases in this district, he is

ENJOINED from filing actions in this district under E.D. Mich. LR 5.2 unless he follows one of the following processes. In the future, in order to file a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan, Early must either

pay the full filing fee OR may request leave to proceed in forma pauperis and must provide, with the complaint, a certification from an attorney in good standing in this district that (1) the claims in the

complaint are not frivolous, and (2) the lawsuit is not brought for an improper purpose. The Clerk is DIRECTED not to accept for filing any papers he submits unless his submission accords with either of the

above processes. SO ORDERED. Date: November 25, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge