Gibson v. Kane

Full title: JEFFREY GIBSON, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL JUDGE KANE, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL…

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 3, 2007

Civil Action No. 06-2209 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-2209.

January 3, 2007

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT

GUSTAVE DIAMOND, District Judge[fn1] [fn1] Sitting by designation in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania under the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 292(b) pursuant to an order dated December 8, 2006, issued by the Honorable Anthony J. Scirica, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (Document No. 6).

By Memorandum and Order of Court dated December 18, 2006, this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed as frivolous plaintiff's pro se complaint naming as defendants "Federal Judge Kane", the "U.S. Attorney General", "NASA" and the "US Voting Rights" and ordered that the case be closed.

Presently before the court are three additional motions filed by plaintiff in this case after it was terminated. The first of these motions is entitled a "motion extraordinary writ of habeas corpus" in which plaintiff alleges he is being "watergated" and questions an "undated" ruling issued by Judge Conner in another federal case unrelated to this closed action and also questions whether Judge Rambo's recusal in this closed case was ordered by the Attorney General.

In the second motion, plaintiff again seeks "extraordinary habeas relief" for an alleged "coverup" by federal judges, asserts that he filed a "motion for relife" which he says was "removed", and requests that United States Senator Bob Casey "stop what is going on." Plaintiff's third motion, filed three days after his second and ten days after his first, also is entitled a "motion for extraordinary writ of habeas corpus" and basically is a reprise of his prior motions with the exception that plaintiff now alleges that this court's order of December 18, 2006, is "e-legal" purportedly because it was "not dated". Plaintiff's third motion is accompanied by a "statement of facts" in support.

Plaintiff's motions have been improperly filed in a terminated case, allege errors occurring in other unrelated cases and otherwise are patently without merit and therefore will be denied. Moreover, in flooding the court with frivolous pleadings and meritless motions, all of which reiterate the identical fanciful and delusional allegations at numerous docket numbers, in increasingly threatening tones², plaintiff's actions have become abusive and a drain on the court's resources. Accordingly, it also will be ordered that plaintiff shall discontinue filing any motions, pleadings or other documents or letters of any kind in this closed case.

2 In a "statement of facts" attached to plaintiff's second motion (Document No. 10), plaintiff directs a statement to the Attorney General that "the vice-president do [sic] not like you. You are going down this time." He then follows that with this cryptic threat in his statement of facts in support of his third motion: "When U.S. Attorney General who is planning to take ??? goes down so do others. 1972 Nixon."

An appropriate order will follow.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2007, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum above, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for "extraordinary writ of habeas corpus" (Document No. 9) be, and the same hereby is, denied; and,

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that plaintiff's "motion for extraordinary writ of habeas corpus", "motion for relife" [sic] and "motion to leave to U.S. Senator `Bob Casey'" [sic] (Document No. 10), be, and the same hereby is, denied; and,

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that plaintiff's "motion for extraordinary writ of habeas corpus" (Document No. 11), be, and the same hereby is, denied; and,

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that plaintiff shall discontinue filing any pleadings, motions or other documents in this terminated case.