From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bond v. Hughes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND AT BALTIMORE
Aug 1, 2017
Civil Action No.: 1:16-02723-DAF (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 1:16-02723-DAF

08-01-2017

WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff, v. JOHNNY L. HUGHES, et al. Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

For reasons expressed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment Order already filed, see Doc. Nos. 22—23, and in the Order denying the re-opening of this case, see Doc. No. 25, yet again the court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case and to File an Amended Complaint. See Doc. No. 26. Therefore, the court also DENIES Plaintiff's request to vacate the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment Order already filed. See id.

Plaintiff already has been "admoni[shed]" that "[he] should take care not to lose credibility by filing vexatious and frivolous complaints." Doc. No. 25. This is because "every paper filed with the Clerk of this [c]ourt, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources. A part of the [c]ourt's [stewardship] responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice." In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam); see also Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 1 (1992) (per curiam) (applying this principle to "notorious abuser[s]" of the judicial system). This is the second time that Petitioner has asked the court to re-open this case. The court has again refused to do so. Petitioner's repeatedly unmeritorious supplications are squandering the Third Branch's limited resources; the aggregation principle informs the court that were Petitioner's conduct repeated on a nationwide scale, the work of the Federal Judiciary might come to a grinding halt. Additionally, Petitioner's conduct is damaging his own interests.

The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and Plaintiff, pro se. The Clerk is directed not to accept any further motions to vacate the court's opinion and order or to reopen this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2017.

Enter:

/s/_________

David A. Faber

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Bond v. Hughes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND AT BALTIMORE
Aug 1, 2017
Civil Action No.: 1:16-02723-DAF (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2017)
Case details for

Bond v. Hughes

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff, v. JOHNNY L. HUGHES, et al. Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND AT BALTIMORE

Date published: Aug 1, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No.: 1:16-02723-DAF (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2017)