In re Hubert Warren

3 Citing cases

  1. Warren v. Travis County Judiciary

    D.C. CV. NO. 2011-031 (D.V.I. Apr. 5, 2011)

    Warren, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"), is before this Court on a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 alleging personal injury due to negligent acts committed against him by the Defendants. Plaintiff avers that jurisdiction is appropriate in this Court because he has been barred by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from filing any civil action in any District Court within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This Court notes that in addition to being barred by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from filing any civil action in any District Court within that jurisdiction, Warren has also been barred from such filings in the Supreme Court of the United States. See In re Warren, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 660 (2010) ("As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1.") Having duly considered the instant Complaint, and finding that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter, it is hereby

  2. Warren v. McLennan County Judiciary

    D.C. CV. NO. 2011-030 (D.V.I. Apr. 5, 2011)

    Warren, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"), is before this Court on a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 alleging personal injury due to negligent acts committed against him by the Defendants. Plaintiff avers that jurisdiction is appropriate in this Court because he has been barred by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from filing any civil action in any District Court within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This Court notes that in addition to being barred by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from filing any civil action in any District Court within that jurisdiction, Warren has also been barred from such filings in the Supreme Court of the United States. See In re Warren, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 660 (2010) ("As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1.") Having duly considered Warren's Complaint, and finding that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter, it is hereby

  3. Warren v. U.S.

    D.C. CV. NO. 2011-032 (D.V.I. Apr. 5, 2011)

    Warren also avers that the Honorable Edward C. Prado of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit abused his discretion when he barred him from filing any civil action in any District Court within the Fifth Circuit. This Court notes that in addition to being barred by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from filing any civil action in any District Court within that jurisdiction, Warren has also been barred from such filings in the Supreme Court of the United States. See In re Warren, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 660 (2010) ("As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1.") Having duly considered this matter, it is hereby ORDERED that Warren's Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; and further