UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ARQUINCY LEE CARR,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-74-JPS v.

RYAN HILL, D. NAEF, and LASHONDA GRAY, ORDER

Defendants.

ARQUINCY LEE CARR,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-154-JPS v.

DAVID ZOERNER, LT. KURT MIKUTIS, ORDER SGT. J. PARKER, SGT. BERNHARDT, and CPL. D. HAYNES,

Defendants.

ARQUINCY LEE CARR,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-255-JPS-JPS v.

POLLYANNA KABARA and BIJI JOSEPH, ORDER

Defendants. ARQUINCY LEE CARR,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-444-JPS-JPS v.

DAVID ZOERNER, DSO AKER, DSO ORDER MOLINARO, DSO GLORIA GALVAN, CPL. N. PUCHTER, SGT. LASHONDA GRAY, T. KNAUPF, SGT. MATTHEW BERNHARDT, UNKNOWN #1, UNKNOWN #2, and UNNAMED NURSE,

Defendants.

ARQUINCY LEE CARR,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-571-JPS v.

POLLYANNA KABARA, BIJI JOSEPH, ORDER KATHLEEN WOESTE, CARLY SMOUSE, MARIAH AHLES, MARCUS JACKSON, ABISULA WAJUADE, and DAVID ZOERNER,

Defendants.

ARQUINCY LEE CARR,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-1150-JPSJPS- v. JPS

LT. JEREMY BECK, BRIAN GREFF, CAPTAIN THEANDER, VICKIE REISEN, D. ORDER CROMWELL, and DAISY C. CHASE,

Defendants. ARQUINCY LEE CARR,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-1151-JPSJPS- v. JPS

CAPTAIN TONIA ROZMARYNOWSKI, LT. KING, CAPTAIN MICHAEL ORDER SCHULTZ, and C. STEVENS,

Defendants.

ARQUINCY LEE CARR,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-1152-JPS v.

RACHAEL MATHUSHAK, K. ORDER VANDERBUSH, DEREK HENNING, and S. GARLAND,

Defendants.

ARQUINCY LEE CARR,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-1224-JPS v.

E. QUINTANA, D. MACDONALD, KURT ORDER MIKUTIS, DAVID ZOERNER, and SGT. PARKER,

Defendants.

Plaintiff ArQuincy Lee Carr, an inmate currently at Green Bay Correctional Institution, has filed nine cases within the last nine months. All of Plaintiff’s cases are § 1983 civil rights cases and many are brought against the same group of defendants with some exceptions. Specifically, Plaintiff has filed the following cases: Date Filed Case Number Disposition 1/19/2024 24-CV-74 Pending (pre-screening) 2/5/2024 24-CV-154 Pending (pre-screening) 2/26/2024 24-CV-255 Pending (post-screening) 4/12/2024 24-CV-444 Pending (pre-screening) 5/8/2024 24-CV-571 Pending (pre-screening) 9/10/2024 24-CV-1150 Pending (pre-screening) 9/10/2024 24-CV-1151 Pending (pre-screening) 9/10/2024 24-CV-1152 Pending (pre-screening) 9/25/2024 24-CV-1224 Pending (pre-screening) The right of access to federal courts is not absolute. In re Chapman,

(7th Cir. 2003) (citing United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor Cnty.,

(7th Cir. 1995)). Individuals are “only entitled to meaningful access to the courts.”

(citing Lewis v. Casey,

(1996)). “Every paper filed . . . no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” In re McDonald,

(1989). A federal court’s inherent powers include “the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,

, 44–45 (1991). The All Writs Act,

(a), gives district courts the “inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants.” Orlando Residence Ltd. v. GP Credit Co., LLC,

, 816–17 (E.D. Wis. 2009) (citing Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2007)). “A filing restriction must, however, be narrowly tailored to the type of abuse, and must not bar the courthouse door absolutely.” Chapman v. Exec. Comm., 324 Fed. App’x 500, 502 (7th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). “Courts have consistently approved filing bars that permit litigants access if they cease their abusive filing practices,” but have “rejected as overbroad filing bars in perpetuity.”

(citations omitted); Smith v. United States Cong., No. 19-CV-1001-PP,

, at *9 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 14, 2019). Under the circumstances presented by Plaintiff having filed nine cases within nine months, the Court finds it appropriate to impose a filing bar limiting Plaintiff to proceeding with only two cases before this branch of the Court at any one time. Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to file a letter with the Court within thirty days of this Order indicating which two of his nine open cases (24-CV-74, 24-CV-154, 24-CV-255, 24-CV-444, 24- CV-571, 24-CV-1150, 24-CV-1151, 24-CV-1152, 24-CV-1224) he would like to proceed. The remaining seven cases will then be administratively closed subject to a motion to reopen after such time as the number of Plaintiff’s pending cases falls below two. Plaintiff may move to modify or rescind this bar no earlier than three years after the date of this Order. See Smith,

, at *11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff ArQuincy Lee Carr is BARRED from filing any new civil cases in this district until such time as the number of his pending cases is reduced to two before this branch of the Court; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with the terms of this Order, Plaintiff must file a letter with the Court on or before November 8, 2024 indicating which two of his nine open cases before this Court (24-CV- 74, 24-CV-154, 24-CV-255, 24-CV-444, 24-CV-571, 24-CV-1150, 24-CV-1151, 24-CV-1152, 24-CV-1224) he would like to proceed; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with the terms of this Order, the Clerk of Court shall return any new case filings received from, or on behalf of, ArQuincy Lee Carr, back to him unfiled, together with a copy of this Order. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 9th day of October, 2024. \ OURT: RE roses) EY fe JAP. Sta mueller U.S. District Judge

Page 6 of 6