Opinion
Case No. 19-52868
2023-09-29
IN RE: Leonard NYAMUSEVYA, Sr., Debtor.
Seth Jason Greenhill, Padgett Law Group, Tallahassee, FL, for 3rd Party Defendants Bethany L. Suttinger, Ellen L. Fornash, Jacqueline M. Wirtz, Padgett Law Group.
Seth Jason Greenhill, Padgett Law Group, Tallahassee, FL, for 3rd Party Defendants Bethany L. Suttinger, Ellen L. Fornash, Jacqueline M. Wirtz, Padgett Law Group.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (A) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION OF PADGETT LAW GROUP, ELLEN L. FORNASH, BETHANY L. SUTTINGER AND JACQUELINE M. WIRTZ TO DECLARE LEONARD NYAMUSEVYA, SR. A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (Doc. 289) AND (B) PROVIDING NOTICE TO THE DEBTOR OF CONSEQUENCES OF FUTURE FILINGS
John E. Hoffman, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge.
I. Introduction
Some of the attorneys at the Padgett Law Group, Ellen L. Fornash, Bethany L. Suttinger and Jacqueline M. Wirtz (collectively, "Movants"), filed a motion asking the Court to declare Leonard Nyamusevya, Sr. ("Nyamusevya") a vexatious litigator ("Motion") (Doc. 289). Their request stems from litigation concerning the property formerly owned by Nyamusevya at 2064 Worcester Court, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43232 ("Property"). After years of litigation, the mortgagor, CitiMortgage, Inc. ("CitiMortgage"), finally secured a foreclosure order and sale, divesting Nyamusevya of any interest in the Property. Undeterred by the facts and law, Nyamusevya has fought the foreclosure in multiple courts over many years while also seeking sanctions against CitiMortgage. The Movants now seek to put an end to that. They ask the Court to impose pre-filing requirements on Nyamusevya, requiring him to obtain leave of Court before pursuing further litigation related in any way to the Property. Id. at 1. They also ask the Court to strike all documents Nyamusevya has filed with it. Id. Nyamusevya objected to the Motion ("Objection") (Doc. 291). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Court notifies Nyamusevya of the future consequences of continuing to file any documents in this case that relate in any way to the Property without leave of Court.
II. Background
The Court draws the relevant background from the dockets and documents filed in this case, Nyamusevya's prior bankruptcy case, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. All documents reviewed are part of the public record in each of those courts, so the Court may take judicial notice of their existence and contents.
Nyamusevya filed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy case on May 1, 2019. He voluntarily converted the Chapter 13 to a Chapter 7 case some three months later without having confirmed a Chapter 13 plan. He received his Chapter 7 discharge on November 21, 2019. Normally, this bankruptcy case would have been closed shortly after issuance of the discharge. This is not a normal case. Instead of retaining counsel to help him file a Chapter 13 plan—which would have allowed him to keep his home—and instead of being content with a
Chapter 7 discharge, Nyamusevya chose to make it his life's work to unsuccessfully contest a state court foreclosure action CitiMortgage commenced 13 years ago in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
The Court bases the following history of the foreclosure dispute on the chronology set forth in the Motion and its review of the dockets of various federal, state and local courts in which Nyamusevya has filed documents. Due to the staggering volume of filings in multiple forums, the Court may have inadvertently omitted other actions Nyamusevya took in his ultimately fruitless journey through the legal system.
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10-CV-13480 ("Foreclosure Action") — CitiMortgage initiated the Foreclosure Action in September 2010, alleging a payment default beginning in May of that year, Compl. in Foreclosure at 2, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas Sept. 14, 2010). In response, Nyamusevya filed 109 motions and replies contesting the validity of CitiMortgage's note and mortgage and the amount due on the obligation. Mot. at 4. Nyamusevya challenged the jurisdiction of the Common Pleas court. Answer, Countercl. and Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon at 2, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas Oct. 14, 2010) ("Answer and Countercl."); Def. Leonard Nyamusevya's Second Motion to Dismiss Pl. CitiMortgage, Inc.'s Compl. at 2, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas Aug. 1, 2011). He also alleged various violations of a consumer sales practices, Answer and Countercl. at 12, and accused CitiMortgage of wanton and reckless conduct, conversion, id. at 2-3, 11-12, and fraud on the court, Def. Leonard Nyamusevya's Mot. to Dismiss Plaintiff CitiMortgage's Compl. at 5, CitiMortgage v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas Aug. 1, 2011). He also initiated unsuccessful attempts to remove the case to federal court. Mot. at 4. An initial judgment entry and decree in foreclosure was entered in May 2014, J. & Decree in Foreclosure at 1, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas May 20, 2014), and a sheriff's sale was scheduled in August 2014, Notice of Sheriff's Sale at 1, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas June 23, 2014), which was stayed when Nyamusevya filed his first bankruptcy case, Notice of Bankruptcy/Suggestion of Stay at 1, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas Aug. 1, 2014). The Common Pleas court held a jury trial in November 2018 and entered a judgment in foreclosure in favor of CitiMortgage, Mot. at 4, in the principal amount of $98,452.56 plus interest, taxes, insurance and costs, J. for Pl. & Decree in Foreclosure, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas Nov. 15, 2018). The sheriff's sale, which had been rescheduled, was postponed again due to Nyamusevya's second bankruptcy filing. A sheriff's sale was eventually completed in June 2022. Sheriff's Return of Order of Sale at 1, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas June 10, 2022).
Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 11-AP-1093 — Nyamusevya initiated a mandamus action against Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Charles Schneider and the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas requesting writs of prohibition and mandamus ordering the dismissal of the Foreclosure Action and specifically complaining about rulings relating
to CitiMortgage's standing to enforce its note and mortgage. Mot. at 4; Nyamusevya v. Schneider, No. 11-AP-1093 (Ohio Ct. Appeal Jan. 11, 2012). The court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint. Mot. at 4; Mem. Decision at 3, Nyamusevya v. Schneider, No. 11-AP-1093 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012).
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:13-cv-00680 — Asserting "humongous Public Interest," Pet. of Notice of Removal at 1, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 2:13-cv-00680 (S.D. Ohio July 15, 2013), Nyamusevya filed a notice of removal attempting to remove the Foreclosure Action to federal court. Mot. at 4. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending remand because not all defendants consented to removal, and there was neither a federal question nor diversity of citizenship. Despite various other filings by Nyamusevya, the court ultimately adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and remanded the case to the Common Pleas court. The district court judge later denied Nyamusevya's motion for reconsideration. Id.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:13-cv-00927 — In September 2013, Nyamusevya filed a complaint against CitiMortgage, the law firm representing CitiMortgage, his former spouse and Judge Charles Schneider. Mot. at 4. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that the district court dismiss the action. Id. at 4-5. Nyamusevya objected to the magistrate judge's report and filed a motion to amend his complaint. The court entered an order adopting in part and rejecting in part the report and recommendation. CitiMortgage filed a motion to dismiss. Ultimately, the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss. Id. at 5.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:14-bk-55846 — Nyamusevya filed a Chapter 13 petition in August 2014, on the eve of the sheriff's sale scheduled in connection with the initial Common Pleas court foreclosure judgment. The bankruptcy case was dismissed one year later because Nyamusevya failed to make Chapter 13 plan payments. Mot. at 5.
Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 14-AP-464 — Nyamusevya appealed an order granting CitiMortgage's motion for summary judgment on its foreclosure claims, which resulted in an order affirming in part and setting aside in part the decision granting summary judgment. Id. The case was remanded to the Common Pleas court for further proceedings to determine the amount owed on the mortgage loan.
Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 18-AP-148 — Nyamusevya filed an appeal in March 2018 seeking to appeal an interlocutory order, which resulted in the court dismissing the appeal. Nyamusevya filed a motion to reconsider, which the court denied. Id.
Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 2018-0561 — Nyamusevya sought to appeal the decision from the Tenth District Court of Appeals Case No. 18-AP-148 denying his appeal of an interlocutory order. The Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. Id.
Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 2018-1559 — Nyamusevya filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition against Judge Charles A. Schneider of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas seeking to stay the foreclosure judgment. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the complaint. State ex rel. Nyamusevya v.
Schneider, 114 N.E.3d 1203 (table) (Ohio Jan. 23, 2019).
Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 18-AP-949 — In December 2018, Nyamusevya appealed the judgment entry and decree of foreclosure issued by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Due to Nyamusevya's second bankruptcy filing, the court stayed the appeal, but ultimately, in October 2020, the court issued a decision overruling Nyamusevya's seven assignments of error and affirming the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Mot. at 5.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:19-bk-52868 ("2019 Bankruptcy Case") — Nyamusevya filed a Chapter 13 petition on the eve of the foreclosure sale. In re Nyamusevya, Case No. 19-52868, Doc. 1 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio May 1, 2019). The Chapter 13 case was voluntarily converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding, In re Nyamusevya, Case No. 19-52868, Doc. 59 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio July 22, 2019) and the Court entered a discharge order on November 21, 2019. In re Nyamusevya, Case No. 19-52868, Doc. 126 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Nov. 21, 2019). While most no-asset Chapter 7 cases complete within four to six months and generate a docket of approximately 40 filed documents, this case remains pending four years after filing and to date there have been nearly 300 documents filed in the case. Included as an appendix to this opinion is a copy of the docket of the 2019 Bankruptcy case highlighted to show motions and other documents Nyamusevya filed that relate in any way to the Property or CitiMortgage— they number 71 documents and total 2,638 pages. It bears noting that, in most of the documents, Nyamusevya simply reasserts and rehashes arguments the Court had already rejected as utterly lacking merit.
Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 19-AP-199 ("2019 Mandamus Action") — Nyamusevya filed a writ of mandamus action against Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Daniel Hawkins alleging that Judge Hawkins acted inappropriately in entering judgment for CitiMortgage in the Foreclosure Action. Mot. at 5. He also sought a writ of prohibition contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the foreclosure action. The court initially stayed the action based on the 2019 Bankruptcy, but ultimately the court adopted the magistrate's decision and dismissed the complaint. Id.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Adversary Proceeding No. 19-2074 — Nyamusevya filed an adversary proceeding against CitiMortgage in May 2019 seeking to (1) set aside the foreclosure judgment on the bases of misrepresentation and fraud and (2) impose money damages. Mot. at 5. CitiMortgage filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. See Nyamusevya v. CitiMortgage, Inc ., No. 19-2074 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2022).
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Adversary Proceeding No. 19-2077 — Nyamusevya filed a second adversary proceeding against CitiMortgage in May 2019 seeking to (1) set aside the foreclosure judgment on the basis of fraud, and (2) impose an award of $23 million in damages. CitiMortgage filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. Mot. at 6; Nyamusevya v. CitiMortgage, Inc ., No. 19-2077 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2022).
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Adversary Proceeding No. 19-2094 — Nyamusevya filed a third adversary proceeding against CitiMortgage in July 2019 seeking to (1) set aside the foreclosure judgment on the basis of fraud, and (2) impose an award of
$23 million in damages. CitiMortgage filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. Mot. at 6; Nyamusevya v. CitiMortgage, Inc ., No. 19-2094 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2022).
Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Case No. 2019-BAP-08027 — Nyamusevya sought review of the bankruptcy court's decision and order finding that the Property had been abandoned by the Chapter 7 trustee, that he had received a discharge, and that therefore there was no automatic stay in place to prohibit or delay a sheriff's sale of the Property. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order "in every respect." Nyamusevya v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Nyamusevya), No. 19-8027, 2021 WL 193965, Doc. 38-2 at 12 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Jan. 20, 2021).
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 20-3688 — Nyamusevya filed a notice of appeal of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there had been no entry of a final or appealable order terminating all of the issues presented before the BAP. Mot. at 6; Nyamusevya v. CitiMortgage, Inc . (In re Nyamusevya), No. 20-3688, Doc. 8 (6th Cir. Aug. 12, 2020).
Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 2020-0728 — Nyamusevya appealed the Tenth District Court of Appeals 2019 Mandamus Action decision. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appeals court decision dismissing the complaint. Mot. at 6
Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 20-AP-155 — Nyamusevya appealed the Common Pleas court's decision denying Nyamusevya's Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment in the Foreclosure Action. The Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the then-pending direct appeal of the foreclosure judgment had divested the trial court of jurisdiction to decide Nyamusevya's Rule 60(B) motion. Id.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 0:2021-bk-03089 — Nyamusevya again challenged the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision affirming the decision of the Bankruptcy Court regarding abandonment of the Property and various other challenges. He sought a stay pending appeal. The Sixth Circuit denied the request for a stay and affirmed the BAP's decision. Id.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:22-cv-02228 — Nyamusevya filed an action against the bankruptcy judge before whom his Chapter 7 case is pending, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Daniel Hawkins, First American Financial Title Insurance Company, CitiMortgage, the Padgett Law Group, the Franklin County Sheriff's Department, and the United States of America seeking an injunction to block the sheriff's sale of the Property. Nyamusevya v. Hoffman, No. 22-2228, Doc. 1 at 12 (S.D. Ohio May 25, 2022). The Defendants filed motions to dismiss, and in addition, CitiMortgage filed a motion to declare Nyamusevya a vexatious litigator. The court granted all the motions to dismiss. Nyamusevya v. Hoffman, No. 22-2228, Doc. 51 at 2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 21, 2023). The vexatious litigator motion was dismissed as moot, with the court reserving the right to reexamine the motion pending future litigation. Id.
Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-AP-327 — In June 2022, Nyamusevya filed a mandamus action against Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Daniel Hawkins, the Franklin County Sheriff's Office, the Padgett Law Group, First American Financial Title Insurance, and CitiMortgage. Nyamusevya also filed a motion for preliminary injunction, motion
for temporary restraining order, a motion to decline eviction, motion for clarification to block CitiMortgage's contention, motion to substantiate that the September 2010 foreclosure complaint was not an in rem complaint and motion to substantiate that the November 2018 foreclosure judgment was not an in rem judgment. Mot. at 6. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. Nyamusevya v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, No. 22-AP-327, Doc. 51 at 2 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2023).
Franklin County Ohio Domestic Relations, Case No. 09-DR-001832 — In June 2022, Nyamusevya filed a motion for contempt against CitiMortgage in his divorce case, seeking a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the sheriff's sale of the Property. Mot. at 7. The motion was denied.
Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-AP-00713 — Nyamusevya appealed the domestic relations' court's denial of his contempt motion. This appeal remains pending.
Tenth District Court of Appeals, Case Nos. 22-AP-464 and 22-AP-514 — Nyamusevya appealed two judgment entries of the Common Pleas court confirming the sheriff's sale of the Property and ordering the distribution of sale proceeds and deed. Mot. at 7. He also filed emergency motions to stay the writ of possession. The appeals were consolidated. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed both Common Pleas court judgments in May 2023. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 22AP-464 & 22AP-514, 2023 WL 3370448 (Ohio Ct. App. May 11, 2023).
Supreme Court of Ohio, Case Nos. 2022-1634 and 2022-1645 — Nyamusevya filed two complaints, both seeking a ruling that the foreclosure action was void, one against the Ohio Court of Claims, which was 153 pages long, Compl. for Expedited Writ of Mandamus and Precedendo and Alternative Writ and Other Allowed Writs and Reliefs Directed to Ohio Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy, No 2022-1634 (Ohio Dec. 28, 2022) and another, which was 243 pages long, against the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, Compl. for Expedited Writ of Mandamus and Precedendo and Alternative Writs and Other Reliefs Directed to Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy, No. 2022-1645 (Ohio Dec. 29 2022). The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed both complaints. See 04/05/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1116 at 2.
In addition to those actions, in his bankruptcy case, Nyamusevya served, among others, the FBI, the President of the United States, and other public officials as part of his efforts to render the state court's foreclosure orders void ab initio. See In re Nyamusevya, Case No. 19-52868, Supp. Addendum to Emergency and Unopposed Motion to Hold the Lower State Trial Court's Orders and Proceedings Void Ab Initio Under § 524 and Request for Fresh State [sic] Under Rule 1001 and Request for an Expedited Hearing, Doc. 275 at 18-19. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Nyamusevya served an emergency motion for preliminary or permanent injunction blocking the sheriff's sale on Attorney General Merrick Garland. See Nyamusevya v. Hoffman, Case No. 22-2228, Emergency and Unopposed
It is worth noting two things: First, aside from the two bankruptcy cases he filed with this Court, Nyamusevya has not paid a single filing fee in any of the actions he has initiated in any court. He has either been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or his filing fees have been deferred. Second, Nyamusevya routinely filed (and continues to file) extremely lengthy documents with a multitude of attachments, ignoring the page limitations set forth in the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court, and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Motion to Hold the Lower State Trial Court's Orders and Proceedings Void Ab Initio Under § 524 and Request for Fresh Start Under Rule 1001, Doc. 44 at 38. In his various filings, he also accused judges of corruption and discrimination. See, e.g., Mot. at 11.
Despite Nyamusevya's efforts to stymie it for more than a decade, the sheriff's sale of the Property took place in June 2022 and was confirmed in July 2022. Entry Confirming Sale Ordering Distribution of Sale Proceeds and Deed, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas July 6, 2022). The Common Pleas court issued writ of possession in October 2022, granting the purchaser possession of the Property. Habere Facias, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 10-CV-13480 (Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas Oct. 10, 2022). Shortly after the foreclosure, Nyamusevya began filing documents with several different courts, each repeating some version of the allegation that, as a result of the foreclosure, he was forced "to hide and live in the cold weather in the wooded jungle near Toledo to escape being killed by the Sheriff Officers[.]" Mot. at 10.
III. Request for Relief and Objection
By their Motion, the Movants ask the Court to impose pre-filing requirements on any future Property-related filings by Nyamusevya and strike all of his previous filings in this case. In his Objection, Nyamusevya states—with no apparent sense of irony—that the Motion is an abuse of the bankruptcy process. Obj. at 1. The remainder of his Objection rehashes his previous arguments that the foreclosure judgment violated the discharge injunction and that the defendants in his various lawsuits should pay him large amounts of money in damages. Id. at 2-11. Nyamusevya also asserts that the Court is not impartial. Id. at 11.
IV. Nyamusevya Is a Vexatious Litigator
"The repeated filing of frivolous lawsuits by vexatious litigators is a well-recognized problem in the federal courts because such filings require a significant expenditure of limited judicial resources." Halsell v. T-Mobile Customer Relations, No. 2:23-cv-202, 2023 WL 3051223, *2 (S.D. Ohio 2023). Courts may impose restrictions on vexatious litigators, and requiring leave of court before filing a document "is the proper method for handling the complaints of prolific litigators." Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987). "There is nothing unusual about imposing prefiling restrictions in matters with a history of repetitive or vexatious litigation." Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998). Bankruptcy "gives to the honest but unfortunate debtor ... a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of pre-existing debt. What the law does not do however, is give a debtor ... unrestrained freedom to run roughshod over the court system[.]" In re Jones, 632 B.R. 138, 141 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2021) (cleaned up). "Federal courts, including Bankruptcy Courts, are vested with the inherent power to control [their] proceedings and the conduct of the parties involved." In re Dekom, Case No. 19-30082-KKS, 2020 WL 4004116, at *4 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2020) (cleaned up).
In addition to its inherent authority, the Court has the authority to impose pre-filing restrictions on vexatious litigators under 11 U.S.C. § 105:
A bankruptcy court may use its inherent authority to sanction parties for conduct that abuses the judicial process.
. . . .
In addition to its inherent authority, a bankruptcy court "may [also] invoke its statutory power of [§] 105(a) to redress Rule 9011 violations, bad faith, and unreasonable, vexatious litigation." Under 11 U.S.C. § 105, a court may issue any order or take any action "necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of the process."
In re United States Corp., No. 20-40375-KKS, 2021 WL 1100078, at *3 (Bankr. N.D. Fla., Jan. 22, 2021) (cleaned up).
Again, a trial court has the "authority to issue pre-filing restrictions to prevent prolific litigants from filing harassing and vexatious pleadings." Clapper v. Clark Dev., Inc., No. 14-3500/14-3770, 2015 WL 13688415, at *3 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 2015). But before doing so, the Sixth Circuit instructs that this Court must (1) give Nyamusevya notice that pre-filing requirements will be imposed; (2) "create an adequate record for review ... includ[ing] a listing of all the cases and motions that led the [] court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed"; (3) make "substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions"; and (4) "narrowly tailor the order 'to closely fit the specific vice encountered.'" Clemons v. DeWine, No. 19-3033, 2019 WL 7567197, at *3 (6th Cir. May 1, 2019).
The Court denied the Movants' original motion because they initially failed to give Nyamusevya notice. See Doc. 288. The Movants then gave Nyamusevya the required 21-day notice of his right to object to the Motion, and he in fact objected to it. Thus, Nyamusevya has received notice that the Court may impose pre-filing requirements. And the Court has provided an adequate record for review by summarizing Nyamusevya's Property-related litigation in this Court and others, and by attaching as an appendix a copy of the 2019 Bankruptcy Case's docket, highlighted to show Nyamusevya Property-related motions and other documents.
Nyamusevya's repeated filings in multiple forums—including this Court— are harassing, repetitive, and have consumed far too much of the limited resources of courts, their judges, judges' staffs, clerks of court and law enforcement officers. The thumbnail history of his various foreclosure-related actions, shown above, does not begin to reveal the sheer number of documents filed in each case. Nyamusevya has filed thousands of pages of incoherent ramblings, random case citations, legal theories based on an aggressive and seemingly willful distortion of property law, bankruptcy law, and foreclosure law, as well as ungrounded accusations of ill treatment by lenders, lawyers and courts. His deluge of frivolous filings required responses from opposing parties, which then generated replies and additional motions from Nyamusevya, which, of course, generated more responses, replies and motions, ad infinitum. This was all especially wasteful because every court that has reviewed the Foreclosure Action has found the foreclosure judgment to be valid. Despite several lengthy written decisions from multiple courts explaining the reasoning behind their findings, Nyamusevya persists in arguing and re-arguing positions that have been soundly rejected. He has done so at no financial cost to himself—save for what must be extraordinary printing and paper expenses—but at great cost to the judicial system.
V. Notice to Nyamusevya of Pre-Filing Requirements
For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that Nyamusevya's actions are harassing and require the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources, making a vexatious litigator order
appropriate to prevent ongoing frivolous litigation. "Amongst the restrictions [the Sixth Circuit] has approved is a limitation on filing pleadings without first obtaining approval from the Court to do so." Clapper, 2015 WL 13688415, at *3. The Court will consider no further filings by Nyamusevya related in any way to the Property unless he seeks and obtains leave of Court before making such filings. Failure to obtain leave of Court will result in monetary sanctions under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 and the additional requirement that any future filings be signed by an attorney admitted to, and in good standing with, the bar of the State of Ohio. This order is narrowly tailored to Nyamusevya's specific vice because it imposes those pre-filing requirements only on Property-related filings —the primary subject of Nyamusevya's frivolous litigation. See Clemons, 2019 WL 7567197, at *3. If Nyamusevya fails to comply with the requirement to seek leave of Court, these additional restrictions will be necessary to stem the tide of futile, time-consuming filings attempting to re-litigate matters already decided.
VI. Conclusion
The Motion is GRANTED to the extent it (1) seeks a declaration that Nyamusevya is a vexatious litigator, (2) imposes pre-filing restrictions on future filings related to the Property, and (3) notifies Nyamusevya of the potential for additional pre-filing restrictions, should he disregard the terms of this opinion and order. The Motion is DENIED to the extent it asks the Court to strike all of Nyamusevya's prior filings with this Court. Such relief is not warranted under the circumstances and would render much of the 2019 Bankruptcy Case a nullity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Appendix Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display. Image materials not available for display.