Robert Lee Brock, A/K/A Two Souls Walker v. Ronald Angelone

Citations: 105 F.3d 952; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1774; 1997 WL 40896Docket: 96-6116

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; February 4, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia inmate and prolific litigant, filed twenty-nine appeals in the Fourth Circuit between 1995 and 1996, primarily under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various prison condition grievances. None of his claims were found meritorious by any court, leading to significant burdens on the legal system. In response to his frivolous appeals, the court required Brock to show cause for potential sanctions, ultimately imposing them under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.

Brock's history includes numerous complaints about prison conditions, such as food quality, access to legal resources, and treatment by prison officials. Notably, he once sought $1 million for mental cruelty due to denied requests for "extra meat" in his meals, which was dismissed as frivolous. His litigation included claims against a crime victim and dissatisfaction with the handling of his grievances by prison staff. 

In an effort to manage Brock's filings, the district court instituted a pre-filing review system requiring his future complaints to be screened for good faith and non-frivolous claims. However, Brock continued to submit additional claims, including one demanding reconsideration of previous cases and $72 million in damages against a presiding judge. His subsequent petitions, including complaints about housing and recommendations for job training, were also returned unfiled by the district court.

Brock has filed multiple section 1983 claims, motions for reconsideration, and appeals, often presenting numerous claims that necessitate responses. One claim sought extensive remedies including policy changes and $82,000, while a reconsideration motion requested to relabel claims under any applicable law, further complicating judicial review. In his current section 1983 claim, Brock alleges he is being poisoned or experimented on due to the presence of propylene glycol in pancake syrup served in prison. He attempted to bypass a pre-filing judicial review by filing in the Western District of Virginia, despite acknowledging the lack of jurisdiction and the occurrence of events in the Eastern District, where his case was ultimately transferred.

The district court found Brock's claim to be frivolous, noting that propylene glycol is a common food ingredient and not inherently toxic, contrary to Brock's assertions. The court highlighted that Brock did not claim coercion in consuming the syrup and noted that his litigation efforts, despite the threat of sanctions, had not deterred him from pursuing what was deemed a groundless claim. Under F.R.A.P. 38, the court retains the authority to impose sanctions for frivolous appeals, allowing for the recovery of damages and costs incurred by the appellee, which may include attorney's fees, as a means of justice and penalty against the appellant.

Appellant was ordered to show cause for potential sanctions due to filing a frivolous appeal, in accordance with F.R.A.P. 38, which allows for court notice and response opportunity. After reviewing the appellant's response, the court determined the appeal was frivolous and imposed sanctions. A monetary award of $500 is granted to the appellees, payable to the Warden of the Haynesville Correctional Center. Additionally, the appellant is enjoined from filing any further civil appeals in this court until the sanctions are paid and a district court certifies that any new claims are not frivolous. This practice aligns with precedents from other circuits, ensuring that the appellant cannot pursue further appeals without meeting these conditions.