United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
KRIS K. AGRAWAL Plaintiff
DIETER PETER, ANDREW VON KURSELL, RAFAEL PINEDO, MINERAL HILL INDUSTRIES, LTD., DIANA BLACKWELL, BILL WINSETT, TAMMY WINSETT, B. K. HOLDINGS, LLC, SUSAN CONRAD, and, SEVERAL TORTFEASORS Defendants.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge.
the Court is Plaintiff's Petition for Leave to File a
Pro Se Action [Doc. No. 1] in compliance with the
filing restrictions imposed by this Court in Order [Doc. No.
25] (“Filing Restrictions Order”) in Agrawal
v. Walker, et al., No. CIV-18-1133-D. Plaintiff requests
leave to file a Complaint [Doc. No. 2] incorporating a state
court petition [Doc. No. 2-1]. Complaint at ¶15. The Court
determines that the Petition for Leave must be denied.
Court's Filing Restrictions Order, Plaintiff was enjoined
from filing “arguments that are frivolous” and
unwarranted by existing law. Filing Restrictions Order at 3.
The purpose of the Filing Restrictions Order was to
“prevent Plaintiff Agrawal from continuing to file
improper challenges related to the [administrative law
judge]'s award” in favor of Chris Holland against
Energy Production Services, LLC. Id. at 2. An
examination of the Complaint, state court petition, and
exhibits demonstrate that Plaintiff is attempting to
circumvent the Court's injunction by asserting yet
another challenge to this state court judgment.
Complaint incorporates a state court cause of action
challenging the state court judgment affirming the
administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) award to
Chris Holland which was the subject of the Filing
Restrictions Order. Complaint at ¶15; Petition [Doc. No.
2-1] at 9 (“Fifth Cause of Action”). In support
of this prohibited claim, Plaintiff attaches to his Complaint
various documents relating to the Oklahoma Department of
Labor wage dispute resulting in the judgment in Mr.
Holland's favor. Exhibit D “No Judgment Against
Energy Production Services, LLC., ” [Doc. No. 2-4].
intention to challenge the judgment is further evidenced by
his inclusion of Mr. Holland as an intended defendant in the
Complaint. Although Mr. Holland is not a named defendant in
the caption of the Complaint: (1) he is a named defendant in
the state court petition incorporated in the Complaint; and,
(2) Plaintiff caused a summons to be issued to Mr. Holland in
the state court proceedings on June 27, 2019. Petition at 1, 9.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff's inclusion of unnamed
“several tortfeasors” in the caption of the
Complaint likely includes Mr. Holland.
Court further finds that Plaintiff's burial of the
prohibited claim and the identification of Mr. Holland as an
intended defendant by incorporation of the state court
petition is the latest of many attempts to camouflage the
intent to challenge the state court judgment in Mr.
Complaint is in violation of the Filing Restrictions
Order. Therefore, Plaintiff's Petition for
Leave must be denied.
reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Petition for Leave to
File Pro-Se Action [Doc. No. 1] is
IS SO ORDERED
 Petition, Agrawal, et al., v. Conrad,
et. al., CJ-2019-95, Okmulgee County, June ...