govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-5_22-cv-00196-2

- 1 - 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
CENTRAL DIVISION 
(at Lexington) 
 
WEI QIU, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
V. 
 
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF 
WOODFORD COUNTY PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS, 
 
Defendant. 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
 
) 
) 
 
 
 
Civil Action No. 5: 22-196-DCR 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
AND ORDER 
 
 
***    ***    ***    *** 
 A final Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant Board of Education of Woodford 
County Public Schools (the “Board”) on September 27, 2023.  [Record No. 33]  Plaintiff Wei 
Qiu then moved for sanctions against Grant Chenoweth, the Board’s counsel, on October 10, 
2023.   [Record No. 34]  Next, Qiu filed a motion  on October 17, 2023, to alter the 
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Board summary judgment.  [Record No. 35] 
 Qiu’s motion for sanctions will be denied because she fails to state with any 
particularity grounds for the motion or offer a legal argument to support the imposition of 
sanctions.  Qiu’s motion to alter the Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Board 
summary judgment will be denied  for the same reason .  In addition, Qiu will be directed to 
tender a written explanation regarding why the Court should not impose prefiling restrictions. 
I. 
 Qiu moves for sanctions against Attorney Chenoweth on two grounds .  First, she 
contends that he spoliated evidence  to aid in misrepresenting the qualifications of another 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 1 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 2 - 
 
applicant for the physics position in issue.  Second, Qiu claims that Chenoweth misrepresented 
the law to disqualify Qiu for the physics position.  Even if these arguments had merit, which 
they do not, neither assertion has any relevance to the outcome of this  case.  However, to 
provide a fully-developed record, the Court will address both assertions. 
A. 
 Qiu alleges that Chenoweth falsely indicated that the Board’s chosen applicant was a 
qualified candidate because he was “enrolled in an ‘Option 6’ program.”  [Record No. 34- 2, 
p. 1] She then suggests that  Chenoweth spoliated evidence by redacting the academic 
enrollment dates of the applicant to obscure the fact that he was not qualified  at the time he 
was selected. 
Chenoweth responds by noting that  redactions were intended solely to protect the 
identity of the individual  applicant, consistent with guidance from the Kentucky Attorney 
General’s Office.  See  00-ORD-090.  He further states that , consistent with Option 6, the 
applicant “only needed to have registered for [a teacher preparation] program at the time he 
applied,” and the applicant had done so.  [Record No. 36, p. 3] 
A person can be “enrolled,” i.e. , officially registered, in a program despite not yet 
attending classes.  See Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Fell , 391 S.W.3d 713, 720 (Ky. 2012)  
(“Indeed, ‘enroll’ and ‘attend’ are not synonymous.”).  Under Option 6, a student receives a 
one-year provisional certificate “concurrently with employment as a teacher in a local school 
district.”  KRS 161.048(7)  (2017) (emphasis added).  Accordingly, an applicant would not 
have to begin attending Option 6 classes until he or she was hired and teaching.  The applicant’s 
resume, which Qiu herself submitted in the record, indicates that the applicant was  “enrolled 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 2 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 3 - 
 
in the Option 6 MAT program at the University of the Cumberlands”  and that he “will dual 
certify in Physics and Math.” 1  [Record No. 25- 1, p. 12]  Despite Qiu insisting the applicant 
was falsely described as qualified , the Board’s Memorandum filed in Support of Summary 
Judgment clearly states that the chosen applicant “ because of being enrolled in an Option 6 
program . . . was also not yet qualified for the position, but was eligible for the issuance of a 
provisional certificate to teach physics upon being hired for the physics position.”  [Record 
No. 26, p. 12] Neither Chenoweth nor the Board misled the Court.   
 And no spoliation occurred.  “ Spoliation is defined as the intentional destruction of 
evidence that is presumed to be unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction.”  
United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582, 597 (6th Cir. 2003).  This Court has also recognized 
spoliation where evidence is materially altered.  See First Tech. Cap., Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase 
Bank, N.A., 12-cv-289, 2014 WL 12648548, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 21, 2014) (quoting Silvestri 
v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2011)).  Qiu does not allege that any 
documents were destroyed .  She merely contends that Chenoweth’s redactions constituted 
“changed evidence.”  [Record No. 37, p. 4]  But redacting the applicant’s enrollment dates did 
not “alter” the document.  If Qiu wished to oppose the redactions, she had ample time to do 
so.  And e ven if the redaction had risen to the level of alteration , it would not have been 
material.  Qiu failed to demonstrate that she was a qualified applicant as part of her prima facie 
 
1 The resume uses both present tense (is enrolled) and future tense (will certify) to demonstrate 
that the applican t was enrolled in the Master of Arts in Teaching (“MAT”) program at the 
University of the Cumberlands and intended to participate in the university’s EPSB-approved 
Option 6 programs for Physics (Course Code 290) and Math (Course Code 210). 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 3 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 4 - 
 
case.  See White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381, 391 (6th Cir. 2008).  Accordingly, 
the Court was not required to analyze the other applicant’s qualifications. 
B. 
 Qiu next alleges that Chenoweth misrepresented the law to disqualify her from the 
physics position by suggesting she was not qualified under Option 7.  This argument highlights 
Qiu’s ongoing misunderstanding of the applicable statute .  Despite this Court’s detailed 
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Record No. 32], Qiu continues to argue that she was “ready 
to be professionally certified for the physics position by Option 7 for her physics Praxis score 
. . . .”  [Record No. 34, pp. 3–4]  This argument fails as a matter of law for two reasons.   
First, the Praxis scores Qiu submitted offer no support  of her qualification because they were 
unverified and expired.2   
[E]ven if Qiu had submitted a certified copy of her Praxis scores demonstrating 
proficiency in physics, the scores provided had expired for purposes of teacher 
certification.  Pursuant to 16 KAR 5:020, “A passing score on an assessment 
established at the time of admission shall be valid for the purpose of applying 
for admission for five (5) years from the assessment administration date.”  The 
test upon which Qiu relies to demonstrate her proficiency in physics was taken 
May 7, 2013 (a date some seven years before applying for the vacancy here in 
issue). 
[Record No. 32, p. 8]  Second, even if her Praxis scores had been both verified and unexpired, 
Option 7 still would not be avai lable to her  because she already holds a certification in 
chemistry.  “The Institute Alternative Route to certification is only available for initial 
 
2 “At the EPSB Meeting on July 11, 2022, the Board voted unanimously to allow ten- year 
recency for admission assessments under 16 KAR 5:020.  However, when Qiu applied for the 
physics teacher position, the five -year re cency requirement was in place.  See Meeting 
Minutes, Action Item 2022- 034, Education Professional Standards Board, Kentucky 
Department of Education (July 11, 2022).”  [Record No. 32, p. 8, n.5] 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 4 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 5 - 
 
certification, which is clearly stated on the EPSB explainer that she herself provided.”  [Record 
No. 32, p. 8] 
 Qiu’s motion for sanctions levies unfounded accusations against Chenoweth and 
attempts to relitigate issues already resolved.  Her motion for sanctions will denied because 
Qiu fails to raise any legal basis to support her request. 
II. 
 Qiu’s second motion seeks to alter the Court’s Order granting summary judgment to 
the Board.  [Record No. 32]  She argues that the order “ falsified facts appallingly ,” that it 
“shamed the federal court nastily,” and that it “lawyered for Board.”  [Record No. 35, pp. 9, 
10, 12]  From a substantive standpoint, Qiu merely attempts to relitigate prior rulings she finds 
unfavorable—most of which ha ve no bearing on the outcome of this case.  The arguments that 
she makes are addr essed, in detail, in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and  Order granting 
summary judgment for  the Board.  She does not challenge the Court’s decisions on legal 
grounds, and simply ignores the Court’s reasoning and characterizes each ruling against her as 
“material error” or “injustice.”  This motion also will be denied because Qiu  establishes no 
basis on which the subject Order should be altered. 
Rule 59(e) allows a litigant to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment and gives the 
district court an opportunity to “rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following 
its decision.” White v. N.H. Dep’t of Emp. Security, 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982).  The court may 
grant a Rule 59(e) motion if there is “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; 
(3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Intera 
Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing GenCorp,  Inc. v. Am. Int’l 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 5 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 6 - 
 
Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999)).  “A ‘manifest error’ is not demonstrated by 
the disappointment of the losing party.  It is the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure 
to recognize controlling precedent.’”  Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 
2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)).  Courts will not 
address new arguments or evidence that the moving party could have raised before the decision 
on the merits issued.  Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020).   
A. 
 Qiu dedicates a considerable amount of time to arguing that “Board lied to fake the 
qualification of the selected White/Caucasian for the position”  and that the Court “took 
Board’s material lie knowingly.”  [Record No. 3 5, pp. 1, 10] But as the Court has repeatedly 
stated, the applicant’s qualifications were irrelevant to the outcome of this case. 
For her case to survive the Board’s motion for summary judgment, Qiu was required to 
establish a prima facie  case of disparate treatment.  Tex.  Dep’t of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).  Doing so required her to demonstrate that: “(1) [s]he is a member 
of a protected class; (2) [s]he was qualified for [her] job; (3) [s]he suffered an adverse 
employment decision; and (4) [s]he was replaced by a person outside the protected class or 
treated differently than similarly situated non -protected employees.”  Baxter Healthcare 
Corp., 533 F.3d at 391; [Record No. 32].  Despite her insistence to the contrary, Qiu failed to 
demonstrate that she was qualified for the job.  A s a result , the Court was not required to 
analyze the other applicant’s qualifications and the Board was entitled to summary judgment.  
This argument does not support Qiu’s motion to alter the Court’s judgment.  
  
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 6 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 7 - 
 
B. 
  Next, Qiu argues that the Court erred by not considering earlier acts of alleged 
discrimination.  But the order granting summary judgment to the Board explained this in detail.  
[See Record No. 32, Part I ]  Qiu ignores the Court’s analysis and cites a California Court of 
Appeals decision interpreting state law to suggest that the Court made “many errors of fact and 
law purposely that it is injustice.”  [Record No. 35, p. 7]   Qiu’s bald assertion that the Court 
erred, absent any legal argument, does not support her motion.  
C. 
 Qiu also contests the Court’s denial of her motion to file a sur -reply when the parties 
were briefing their motions for  summary judgment .  [Record No. 35, p. 12] The Court 
dedicated Part III of its Memorandum Opinion and Order to addressing her request  and laid 
out the reasons for denying her motion.  [Record No. 32]  Qiu ignores this reasoning and simply 
asserts that it was a material error of the Court.  Despite her claim, the Board’s Reply had not 
introduced a new issue of law and Qiu was not entitled to file a sur-reply.  But even if the Court 
had permitted the filing, the issue she wished to address had no bearing on the outcome of this 
case.   
D. 
 The final su bstantive argument is Qiu’s contention that the Court erred when  
determining that her Praxis scores were expired for purposes of teacher certification through 
Option 7. 3  Rather than  challenge the Court’s recitation of blackletter law, Qiu makes an 
 
3 This ignores the fact that Qiu does not qualify for certification through Option 7, which is for 
new certification only. [See Record No. 32, p. 8]. 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 7 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 8 - 
 
argument by analogy.  She notes that licens e renewal  as a certified nursing aid requires 
candidates to provide evidence that they performed nursing related functions for at least eight 
hours for pay as a nurse aide during the prior twenty-four-month period.  She argues that 
“memory fades with time, and practicing strengths memory that every kind of certificate is 
valid as long as the holder practices the expertise which was certified.”  [Record No. 35, p. 15]  
Accordingly, Qiu states that her “memory of physics was still good in 2021 because she taught 
physics in 2017-2018 . . . . So Qiu’s physics Praxis was still valid in 2021 because she taught 
physics in 2017-2018 like her nursing aid certificate is valid if she practices 8 hours on a paid 
job every two year .”  [Record No. 35, p. 15]  Qiu’s theory on license  permanence does not 
negate the Commonwealth’s statutory requirements for teacher certification.  For these 
reasons, Qiu’s motion to alter the Court’s judgment will be denied. 
III. 
Qiu has a history of inappropriately moving for sanctions, attempting to relitigate 
resolved matters, and unnecessarily prolonging litigation.  All litigants, including those 
proceeding pro se, have a duty to litigate their claims in good f aith.  The above -described 
misconduct abuses the judicial process and unfairly burdens one’s adversaries by needlessly 
extending their expenditure of time and money.  To prevent further disruption to the Court and 
the unnecessary burden on her opponents, the Court may impose a prefiling restriction in this 
case.  
“Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect 
their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.”  In 
re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 n.8 (1989)  (quoting In re Martin–Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 8 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 9 - 
 
1261 (2d Cir. 1984)); see also In re Darwin Gravitt, No. 86-1617, 1987 WL 36293, at *1 (6th 
Cir. Feb. 10, 1987) (quoting same).  “A court may exercise its inherent power to sanction when 
a party has ‘acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,’ or when the 
conduct was ‘tantamount to bad faith.’”  United States v. Aleo, 681 F.3d 290, 305 (6th Cir. 
2012) (quoting Metz v. Unizan Bank , 655 F.3d 485, 489 ( 6th Cir. 2011) (citing Chambers v. 
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45–46 (1991))).  To exercise their inherent authority, federal courts 
may “‘impose carefully tailored restrictions’ upon ‘abusive litigants.’” Scott v. Bradford, No. 
13-12781, 2014 WL 6675354, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 25, 2014)  (quoting Cotner v. Hopkins, 
795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986)).   
A. 
While pro se litigants’ filings are “held to less stringent standards,” their conduct is not.  
See Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).  Put in blunt terms, o rdinary civil litigants 
proceeding pro se are not entitled to special treatment.  See McKinnie v. Roadw ay Express, 
Inc., 341 F.3d 554, 558 (6th Cir. 2003) .  They have “no license to harass others, clog the 
judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.”  
Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).  Instead, t hey must 
conduct themselves “with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and 
judicial proceedings.”  Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970).  “A pro se litigant in essence 
stands in the place of an attorney.” Bus . Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Comm c’ns Enters., Inc., 
498 U.S. 533, 558 (1991) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).  And while “courts must construe liberally 
the contents of a pro se complaint,” pro se litigants are not exempt from the ordinary rules that 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 9 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 10 - 
 
govern civil practice.  In re Edwards, 748 F. App’x 695, 700 (6th Cir. 2019); McNeil v. United 
States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). 
B. 
In little more than a year, Qiu initiated nine Title VII suits against school districts across 
the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. 4  While t here is no limit to the number of 
actions that a plaintiff can bring to vindicate rights, there is a duty to litigate thos e claims in 
good faith and in accordance with the rules and procedures of the C ourt in which actions are 
filed.   Qiu has repeatedly engaged in making ad hominem attacks against the opposing party 
and its counsel, consistently fails to adhere to the Local Rules , and needlessly burdens her 
adversaries by extending litigation past entry of final judgment through a series of meritless 
filings.   
In another case brought before this Court, Qiu  v. Board of Education of Scott County, 
Kentucky, Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins recommended that Qiu be permanently barred 
from filing documents in the case without certification from a magistrate judge that the 
proposed filing was not frivolous and was not filed with any improper purpose.  See Order and 
Recommendation, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty., No. 21-cv-197 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 9, 2022), 
 
4 Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Anderson Cnty., No. 21-cv-027 (E.D. Ky. filed July 7, 2021), appeal 
docketed, No. 23-5888 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2023); Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty., No. 21-cv-
197 (E.D. Ky. filed July 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 23-5842 (6th Cir. Sept . 19, 2023); 
Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Hardin Cnty., No. 21-cv-482 (W.D. Ky. filed July 26, 2021); Qiu v. Bd. 
of Educ. of Bowling Green Indep. Schs., No. 22- cv-062 (W.D. Ky. filed May 27, 2022); Qiu 
v. Bd. of Educ. of Oldham Cnty. Schs., No. 22-cv-284 (W.D. Ky. filed May 27, 2022); Qiu v. 
Bd. of Educ. of Nelson Cnty. Schs., No. 22-cv-334 (W.D. Ky. filed June 27, 2022); Qiu v. Bd. 
of Educ. of Oldham Cnty. Schs., No. 22-cv-383 (W.D. Ky. filed July 27, 2022); Qiu v. Bd. of 
Educ. of Woodford Cnty. Pub. Schs., No. 22-cv-196 (E.D. Ky. filed July 29, 2022); Qiu v. Bd. 
of Educ. of Jefferson Cnty. Pub. Schs., No. 22-cv-529 (W.D. Ky. filed Oct. 5, 2022). 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 10 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 11 - 
 
ECF No. 82.  The Recommendation highlighted Qiu’s “reliance on ad hominem attacks 
directed at Defendant and its lawyers,” and her consistent failure “to cite with particularity the 
legal foundation for her motions.”  Id. at 10–11.  After providing Qiu with an opportunity to 
object, District Court Judge Gr egory Van Tatenhove adopted the Recommendation and 
imposed a case-specific prefiling requirement .  See  Memorandum Opinion & Order , Qiu v. 
Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty ., No. 21-cv-197 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 23, 2023), ECF No. 97.  But Qiu’s 
misconduct persists and the undersigned will take a similar approach in this case to protect the 
judicial process and the good faith litigants appearing here. 
1. 
 Qiu has been warned that, regardless of her status as a pro se  litigant, she is “to show 
appropriate courtesy and respect to opposing counsel,” that she “is not entitled to make 
unfounded ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel,” and that “by acting unethically, 
frivolously, or vexatiously, ‘the Court may impose sanctions as may be necessary and 
appropriate to deter such conduct.’”  Order and Recommendation at 8–9, Bd. of Educ. of Scott 
Cnty., No. 21-cv-197, ECF No. 82 ( first quoting Gueye v. U.C. Health, No. 13-cv-673, 2014 
WL 4984173, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 6, 2014); and then quoting Wesley v. Ac cessible Home 
Care, No. 18-cv-200, 2018 WL 6424691, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2018) (citing Chambers v. 
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991)).  Qiu’s pro se status does not excuse her attempts to 
slander the Court by making unfounded accusations of bias or prejudice.  See Mayberry v. 
Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 462 (1971); Gueye, 2014 WL 4984173, at *5. 
 Qiu repeatedly derides the opposing party and its counsel, referring to Assista nt 
Superintendent Garett Wells as a “racist ” [e.g., Record No. 29, pp. 11, 14, 18]  and accusing 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 11 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 12 - 
 
opposing counsel of perjury [e.g., Record No. 34, p. 3], hiding evidence [e.g., Record No. 37, 
p. 6], and misleading the Court [e.g., Record No. 37, p. 6].  She also accuses  the Court of 
falsifying facts [e.g., Record No. 35, pp. 9, 11], misrepresenting the law [e.g., Record No. 37, 
p. 7], and lawyering for the Board [e.g., Record No. 35, p. 12]. 
 These ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations are merely recycled from other 
cases she has brought in the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky.  See, e.g., Motion for 
Sanctions, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Oldham Cnty. Schs., No. 22-cv-383 (W.D. Ky. July 19, 2022), 
ECF No. 18 (accusing opposing counsel of misrepresenting the law); Motion for Sanctions, 
Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Nelson Cnty. Schs., No. 22-cv-334 (W.D. Ky. July 19, 2023), ECF No. 
22 (same); Motion to Strike—Exhibit A , Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty., No. 21- cv-197 
(E.D. Ky. Oct. 13, 2021) , ECF No. 14- 1 (notifying opposing counsel that she will move to 
“sanction, prosecute, disbar” to stop counsel from “criminally operating this case”); Motion 
for Sanctions, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Hardin Cnty ., No. 21-cv-482 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 2, 2023), 
ECF No. 113 (accusing the defendant and opposing counsel of involving students in a perjury 
scheme); Motion to Recuse, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty., No. 21-cv-197 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 
28, 2023), ECF No. 129 (accusing the presiding judge  of having “served defendant and its 
lawyers as their lawyer” and doing so “with his power”); Motion to Recuse, Qiu v. Anderson 
Cnty. High Sch., No. 21- cv-027 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 1, 2023) , ECF No. 61 ( making a similar 
accusation).  Despite multiple warnings and admonishments, Qiu continues to conduct herself 
in a manner that is inappropriate and abusive to her adversaries and the Court.  
2. 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 12 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 13 - 
 
 Qiu has also been warned that her motions must comply with Local Rule 7.1(a) and 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1)(B)–(C); that is, they must “state with particularity the 
grounds for the motion, the relief sought, and the legal argument necessary to support it.”  See, 
e.g., Order and Recomm endation at 8, Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty ., No. 21-cv-197, ECF No. 
82.  “[T]he rule that pro se filings should be liberally construed does not exempt pro se litigants 
from basic pleading standards.”  Johnson v. E. Tawas Hous. Comm’n, No. 21-1304, 2021 WL 
7709965, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2021).  Nor does it require courts to “conjure allegations on a 
litigant’s behalf.”  Martin v. Overton , 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Erwin v. 
Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001)).  But even the most generous reading of Qiu’s 
recent filings [Record Nos. 34, 35] fails to expose  a legal or factual basis to support her 
motions.  Instead, s he merely repackages old arguments in a new motion with the hope of a 
better outcome—often while completely ignoring the factual and legal justifications for the 
Court’s earlier rulings.  These tactics fall far short of the Court’s mandate that parties litigate 
their claims in good faith.   
3. 
 Qiu’s practice of extending litigation well past its natural conclusion with frivolous 
filings subjects her adversaries to needless expenditures of time and money.  It also interferes 
with the Court’s ability to manage its docket and places an undue burden on the tax-supported 
courts.  Cf. Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731, 736 (6th Cir. 2008).  While 
her conduct is mirrored in the cases she has brought in the Western District of Kentucky, the 
Court will focus on the three cases brought in the Eastern District.   
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 13 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 14 - 
 
 The first case Qiu brought before this Court  was against the Board of Education of 
Anderson County.  Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Anderson Cnty., No. 21-cv-027 (E.D. Ky. filed July 
7, 2021).  After both parties’ motions for summary judgment were fully briefed, Qiu moved 
for sanctions against opposing counsel.  Motion for Sanctions, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Anderson 
Cnty., No. 21-cv-027 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 11, 2023), ECF No. 53.  The Court found that she offered 
“no grounds to sanction” opposing counsel and denied her motion.  Memorandum Opinion & 
Order at 10, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Anderson Cnty., No. 21-cv-027 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 11, 2023), 
ECF No. 59.  Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant on August 28, 2023.  Judgment, 
Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Anderson Cnty., No. 21-cv-027 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2023), ECF No. 60.  
Qiu then filed a motion seeking the judge’s recusal and a motion to alter the Court’s judgment, 
pursuant to Rule 59(e).  Both motions were denied as meritless.  See Order at 2, Qiu v. Bd. of 
Educ. of Anderson Cnty., No. 21-cv-027 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 12, 2023), ECF No. 63; Memorandum 
Opinion & Order at 1, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Anderson Cnty ., No. 21-cv-027 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 
19, 2023), ECF No. 64.  Qiu has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit.  Notice of Appeal, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Anderson Cnty ., No. 21- cv-027 (E.D. Ky. 
Oct. 10, 2023), ECF No. 65, appeal docketed, No. 23-5888 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2023).   
 The second case Qiu brought before this Court  was against the Board of Education of 
Scott County.  Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty., No. 21-cv-197 (E.D. Ky. filed July 15, 2021).  
Opposing counsel moved for a status conference on February 7, 2022, stating that “[i]n the 
past five months, Qiu has filed thirteen (13) separate pleadings which have required [Scott 
County Schools] to expend time, money, and resources to respond.”  Motion for Status 
Conference at 2, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott  Cnty., No. 21-cv-197 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2022) , 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 14 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 15 - 
 
ECF No. 29.  The Court imposed a case-specific prefiling injunction against Qiu after finding 
that she had a “history of filing frivolous motions.”  Memorandum Opinion & Order at 4, Qiu 
v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty., No. 21-cv-197 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 23, 2023), ECF No. 97.  Judgment 
was entered in favor of the defendant on May 26, 2023.  Judgment, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott 
Cnty., No. 21- cv-197 (E.D. Ky. May 26, 2023) , ECF No. 112.  Since the Court entered 
Judgment nearly six months ago, Qiu has moved for sanctions against opposing counsel, 
moved to alter the Court’s Judgment, filed a motion to have the presiding judge recuse, and 
has entered a number of miscellaneous objections.  All of these requests have been denied.  
Qiu has appealed this case to the Sixth Circuit as well.  Notice of Appeal, Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. 
of Scott Cnty., No. 21-cv-197 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 18, 2023), appeal docketed, No. 23-5842 (6th 
Cir. Sept. 19, 2023). 
 Qiu filed the instant case on July 29, 2022.  [Record No. 1]  The parties had fully briefed 
their respective motions for summary judgment by early  September 2023.  The undersigned 
entered Judgment in favor of the Board on September 27, 2023. [Record No. 33]  Shortly 
thereafter, and consistent with her well -established pattern, Qiu moved for sanctions against 
opposing counsel and sought to have the Court alter its Memorandum Opinion and Order 
granting summary judgment to the Board.  [Record Nos. 34, 35]  As discussed above, these 
motions are frivolous and have placed an unnecessary burden of time and expense on the Board 
and opposing counsel.   
C. 
 “Filing restrictions are ‘the proper method for handling the complaints of prolific 
litigators,’ and a district court may impose one at its discretion.”  United States v. Petlechkov, 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 15 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 16 - 
 
72 F.4th 699, 710 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 
1987)).  Although a plaintiff may not be “absolutely foreclosed from initiating an action in a 
court of the United States,” district courts may “require one who has abused the legal process 
to make a showing that a tendered lawsuit is not frivolous or vexatious before permitting it to 
be filed.” Ortman v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 807, 811 (6th Cir. 1996); see also  Feathers v. Chevron 
U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998) (“There is nothing unusual about imposing 
prefiling restrictions in matters with a history of repetitive or vexatious litigation.”).   If a 
litigant “is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties,” then a pre-
filing injunction is warranted.  Scott , 2014 WL 6675354, at *4  (quotations omitted).  When 
doing so, the court must articulate sufficient rationale, particularly when the defendant is 
proceeding pro se .  Petlechkov , 72 F.4th at 710.  Courts should also ensure that filing 
restrictions are narrowly tailored to address the abusive filing practices.  See United States v. 
Westine, No. 22-5790, 2023 WL 7511686, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2023).   
 Here, the undersigned finds that Qiu has a history of a busing the judicial process by 
filing frivolous motions that harass other parties, needlessly extend litigation, and interfere 
with the Court’s ability to administer justice in an expedient and orderly fashion.  This Court 
has afforded her significant latitude due to her status as a pro se  litigant.  But despite the 
Court’s repeated warnings, opportunities to be heard, and guiding instruction, she continues to 
disregard these admonitions at the expense of other l itigants.  Her conduct is tantamount to 
bad faith.  See BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 742, 752 (6th Cir. 2010).  It 
“is not appropriate and should not be tolerated.”  Wesley, 2018 WL 6424691, at *3. 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 16 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 17 - 
 
 Pursuant to this Court’s inherent power and consistent with the Sixth Circuit’s holding 
in Ortman, the undersigned will impose a prefiling restriction requiring Qiu to show a legal 
basis for new motions before she can file them  in this case.  See Chambers , 501 U.S. at 46.  
This requirement is not meant to discourage Qiu  from filing future motions where  she can 
demonstrate a good faith legal basis.  The undersigned finds this requirement the least 
restrictive means of promoting the interest of j udicial economy and protecting other parties 
before the Court.  At this time, the undersigned does not believe that a District-wide injunction 
or monetary penalties are necessary.  However, th e Court does  not foreclose these  options 
should Qiu’s misconduct persist.   
IV. 
Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, it is hereby 
 ORDERED as follows: 
1. Plaintiff Qiu’s motion for sanctions against opposing counsel [Record No. 34] 
is DENIED. 
2. Plaintiff Qiu’s motion to alter the Judgment in this case [Record No. 35] i s 
DENIED. 
3. Within twenty-one days, Plaintiff Qiu is directed to  SHOW CAUSE why the 
Court should not impose the filing restriction described above.  She is directed to file a written 
response articulating the factually and legally sufficient grounds for any opposition. 
4. With the exception of responding to paragraph 3 of this Order, Plaintiff Qiu is 
temporarily ENJOINED from filing any documents or motions in this case  for the lesser of 
twenty-one (21) days or entry of the Court’s order regarding a prefiling restriction. 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 17 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 18 - 
 
Dated: November 21, 2023. 
 
   
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 40     Filed: 11/21/23     Page: 18 of 18 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight