govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-5_22-cv-00196-3

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
E
ASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
CENTRAL DIVISION 
(at Lexington) 
WEI QIU, 
P
laintiff, 
V.
 
B
OARD OF EDUCATION OF 
WOODFORD COUNTY PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS, 
De
fendant. 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
) 
C
ivil Action No. 5: 22-196-DCR 
M
EMORANDUM ORDER 
***    ***    ***    **
* 
The undersigned entered an Order directing Plaintiff Qiu to tender a written explanation 
regarding why the Court should not impose a prefiling restriction against her in this case.  
[Record No. 40] The Order made clear that the imposition of such a restriction would not be 
intended to discourage meritorious filings but may be a necessary response to he r repeated 
practice of making inappropriate and frivolous filings that unnecessarily prolong litigation and 
unfairly burden her adversaries and the Court .  The O rder further  directed  Qiu  to file her 
response within twenty-one days and noted  that the  Court would impose the sanction if she 
failed to file a timely response or file d a response that did not  identify factually and legally 
sufficient grounds regarding why the restriction should not be imposed. 
Qiu tendered a timely response on December 4, 2023, along with her Notice of Appeal.  
[Record Nos. 41, 42]  But rather than respond to the show cause Order as directed, Qiu again 
focused the bulk of her response on relitigating the substantive matters  already resolved: 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 44     Filed: 12/06/23     Page: 1 of 4 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 2 - 
 
“Orders DN 32 and DN 40 are judicial failures that should be discarded.”  [Record No. 41, p. 
4] 
Qiu also continued her practice of levying baseless accusations and ad hominem 
attacks.  [See, e.g., id. at 1 (accusing one of the undersigned’s clerks of “misbehavior”); id. at 
11 (referring to the undersigned as “Lawyer Reeves” and accusing same of “judicial 
misconduct and corruption” ); id. at 12 (accusing Lawyer Chenoweth of lying and 
misrepresenting the law); id. at 17 (“Judge Reeves was falsifying the facts . . . .”]  Qiu has been 
warned on multiple occasions that her status as a pro se  litigant does not entitle her to special 
treatment and that she must conduct herself with the decorum and respect inherent in the 
judicial process.  [Record No. 40, p. 9] 
Qiu’s response fails to properly respond to the Court’s Order and demonstrates a 
continued unwillingness to comport with the conduct  expected of a litigant in federal court.  
The Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order entered November 21, 2023, detailed the 
Court’s reasoning for contemplating the imposition of a prefiling restriction.  [Record No. 40, 
Part III]  Qiu’s response does nothing to mitigate the Court’s concern.  The undersigned finds 
that the imposition of a prefiling restriction in this case is the least restrictive means of 
protecting other parties  before the Court and ensuring any future filings by Qiu accord  with 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court.   
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 
1. Plaintiff Qiu  is hereafter PERMANENTLY BARRED from filing any 
document in Civil Action No. 5:  22-0196-DCR-HAI unless she first obtains a certification 
from a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky assigned to the 
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 44     Filed: 12/06/23     Page: 2 of 4 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 3 - 
 
case.  The Court will grant such approval only after determining that the proposed filing is not 
frivolous and is not filed for any improper purpose. 
2. To obtain such approval to file any document, Qiu MUST SUBMIT ALL OF 
THE FOLLOWING with the document  she wishes to file : (a) a copy of this Order; (b) a 
separate motion asking for the Court’s permission to file the document and a statement of 
reasons that the Court’s permission should be granted; and, if applicable, (c) the appropriate 
filing fee or a fully completed Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees 
or Costs. 
3. Upon receipt of any document from Qiu, the Clerk of Court is directed to: (a) 
scan the original document and enter it into the record as a miscellaneous document; and (b) 
send the original document back to the plaintiff accompa nied by correspondence indicating 
that the document has been filed but will not be acted upon by the Court unless the assigned 
United States Magistrate Judge certifies the filing as mandated in the preceding paragraph. 
4. Notwithstanding the prefiling rest riction imposed herein, the temporary 
injunction imposed by this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order [Record No. 40] entered 
on November 21, 2023, is SET ASIDE. 
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Clerk of 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 
  
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 44     Filed: 12/06/23     Page: 3 of 4 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
 
- 4 - 
 
Dated: December 6, 2023. 
 
   
Case: 5:22-cv-00196-DCR-HAI     Doc #: 44     Filed: 12/06/23     Page: 4 of 4 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight