MEMORANDUM

MARK A. KEARNEY, District Judge.

The federal courts' limited jurisdiction is available to all who satisfy the requirements of this Court's review. Plaintiff, as a claimed sovereign citizen, filed this action lacking merit and not invoking this Court's limited jurisdiction. As a result, this Court dismissed his case on January 7, 2015 (ECF Doc. No. 8). He did not appeal. Rather, he decided to ignore decisions of this Court. He files frivolous papers almost every week. He continues his barrage of post-dismissal filings. On March 13, 2015, this Court notified Plaintiff that he was bordering on abusing the judicial process (ECF Doc. No. 34). He chose to ignore that notice and submitted frivolous filings burdening the Court's resources. All litigation must reach its endpoint and the time has come for Plaintiff to stop. In the accompanying Order, we deny Plaintiffs multiple vexatious motions and grant the First, Second, and Thirteenth Congressional Districts (together, the "Congressional Defendants") request for a pre-filing injunction requiring court approval before the Clerk of this Court accepts any of Plaintiffs filings in this matter. We also enjoin Plaintiff from commencing any new civil matters against the named Defendants that relates to the subject matter of this action.1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Joseph Danihel ("Danihel") first commenced suit against the same named Defendants by filing a needlessly prolix five-hundred paragraph complaint in the matter captioned Joseph Osmond Danihel v. Office of the President of the United States of America, et al., No. 14-1330 ("Danihel I"). Despite the Complaint not being a model of clarity, Judge Quinones Alejandro found Danihel's claims to be for violation of the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment (Count 1), the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth amendment (Counts 2 and 3), and for discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (Count 5). Danihel I, No. 14-1330, 2014 WL 4384071, *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 2014).2 After the named defendants moved to dismiss, the esteemed Judge Quinones Alejandro dismissed the complaint in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Id. Danihel filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on October 1, 2014. Over four months after filing his Notice· of Appeal in Danihel I, Danihel filed a motion to comply with his discovery requests which this Court denied and subsequently ordered Danihel to make no further filings in Danihel I pending the outcome of his appeal.

Undeterred, Danihel started this Action styled Joseph Osmond Danihel v. Office of the President of the United States, et al., Civ. A. No. 14-6880 ("Danihel If'). Finding the complaint in Danihel II to be an attempt to "relitigate the same claims dismissed by this Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction" as in Danihel I, Judge Quinones Alejandro dismissed the complaint inDanihel II on January 7, 2015. (ECF Doc. No. 8)

Danihel did not appeal the January 7, 2015 Order in Danihel II. Instead, he made a series of filings since the dismissal of Danihel II challenging this Court's authority to rule on the issues before it, accusing this Court and various Co-Defendants as having some unknown "allegiance" to each other, and demanding that his claims be decided by a jury. Danihel also requested that this Court be held in contempt, along with Judge Quinones Alejandro and opposing counsel. This Court previously denied Danihel's various requests for post-dismissal relief. (ECF Doc. No. 34)

Congressional Defendants initially moved for injunctive relief against Danihel on March 10, 2015 preventing him from making any further filings with the Court. In our March 13, 2015 Order (ECF Doc No. 34), we denied this request but noted:

(ECF Doc No. 34). Instead of heeding this Court's notice, Danihel defiantly submitted eighteen (18) filings after our March 13, 2015 Order.3 (ECF Doc. Nos. 41-55) The Congressional Defendants renewed their Motion to Show Cause in light of these filings. (ECF Doc. No. 56)

II. DISCUSSION

A District Court may enjoin "abusive, groundless and vexatious conduct" pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993). "The broad scope of the District Court's power, however, is limited by two fundamental tenets of our legal system-the litigant's due process and access to the courts." Id. There are three requirements we review before issuing such an injunction: "(l) the litigant must be continually abusing the judicial process; (2) the litigant must be given notice of the potential inunction and an opportunity to oppose the court's order; and (3) the injunction must be narrowly tailored to fit the specific circumstances of the case." Grossberger v. Ruane, 535 F. App'x 84, 86 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Brow, 994 F.2d at 1038). The pre-filing injunction is an "exception to the general rule of free access to the courts and its use against a pro se plaintiff must be approached with caution." Id. (citing In Re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982)).

A pre-filing injunction is appropriate. Since the January 7, 2015 dismissal of his second case (Danihel If), Danihel filed approximately two dozen requests for relief. All of these filings assert the same facts in a rambling incoherent structure to hold multiple District Judges in contempt and proceed on claims that have now twice been dismissed. While it is beyond obvious that Danihel is disappointed with the Court's dismissal of claims, we find ample evidence of a "pattern of groundless and vexatious litigation." Chipps v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Middle Dist. Of Pa., 882 F.2d 72, 73 (3d Cir. 1989) (affirming imposition of pre-filing injunction with modification regarding scope).

"Each of plaintiff's filings require the court's time and resources." Hibbard v. Penn-Trafford School Dist., No. 13-622, 2015 WL 321654, *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2015). The Supreme Court stated, "`every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, 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.'" Day v. Day, 510 U.S. 1, 2, 114 S.Ct. 4, 126 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (quoting In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989)). "`The goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests.'" Whitaker v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 514 U.S. 208, 210, 115 S.Ct. 1446, 131 L.Ed.2d 324 (1995) (quoting In re Whitaker, 513 U.S. 1, 2, 115 S.Ct. 2, 130 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994)). The fact that Danihel's case has been dismissed twice and he persists in making over eighteen frivolous filings warrants the imposition of a pre-filing injunction. Grossberger, 535 F. App'x at 86.

We provided Danihel with notice. (ECF Doc. No. 34). In our most recent rule to show cause (ECF Doc. No 57), we allowed him until April 29, 2015 to explain why he should not be enjoined moving forward. Danihel's April 28, 2015 response, like all of his filings, does not address any grounds other than his view, as a sovereign citizen, that this Court lacks any authority over him. He has been given ample notice and an opportunity to explain his tacts and avoid this narrow injunction.

The injunction must be narrowly tailored. We find it sufficient to enjoin Danihel from making any further filings in this matter. We further find it appropriate to enjoin Danihel from commencing new actions concerning the same subject matter as Danihel I and II against the named Defendants without first receiving leave of this Court to do so. This restriction will ensure that the Court will permit the filing of non-frivolous claims against named Defendants submitted by Danihel in the future. Further, in any future action Danihel shall be required to certify that (1) the claims being presented have never before been raised or disposed of on the merits by a federal court; (2) he believes the facts contained in the Complaint to be true; and (3) there is no reason why the claims are foreclosed by controlling law. See Nickelson v. Bush, Civ. A. No. 00-6170, 2001 WL 752667, at *4 (E.D. Pa. July 3, 2001) (finding pre-filing injunction appropriate and imposing certification requirements).

III. CONCLUSION

Danihel's repeated frivolous filings warrant a pre-filing injunction. His self-proclaimed sovereign status does not empower him to abuse this Court with repeated frivolous requests for relief from this Court. He lost his day in court. He did not appeal. His present tact will no longer be permitted. Our accompanying Order enjoins any further unwarranted burden on this Court and the parties to a case dismissed on January 7, 2015.