Opinion
No. CV-83-0878-WFN
May 29, 2003
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse, filed May 27, 2003 (Ct. Rec. 204). In the Motion, pro se Plaintiff Overton represents that a mistake was made at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and his appeal was denied before he could file an appeal brief. Thus, Plaintiff Overton asserts he is refiling his Motion for the second time so that the Ninth Circuit can correct their mistake. The remainder of Plaintiff's Motion is analogous to Plaintiff's prior Motion, filed March 31, 2003 (Ct. Rec. 197), which this Court denied in an Order dated April 2, 2003 (Ct. Rec. 199). In that Order, the Court held that the Plaintiff's pending Motion to Recuse was without merit and patently frivolous (Ct. Rec. 199). The Court also warned the Plaintiff for the third time that further meritless filings would result in an injunction restricting the Plaintiff from making future filings without permission of the Court. Id., citing Cooke v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1524-26 (9th Cir. 1983).
In the instant motion, Plaintiff Overton has attempted to litigate the exact same motion that the Court previously denied. See id. Also, as the Court noted in its Order of December 20, 2002 (Ct. Rec. 186), the Tenth Circuit had noted that Plaintiff's many lawsuits regarding the assessment and collection of his 1989 and 1990 taxes are an abuse of the federal judicial system. Plaintiff Overton has demonstrated a general pattern of litigation vexatious enough to warrant an injunction as the Court anticipates future attempts to relitigate old claims. See Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d at 1524. The Plaintiff has disregarded this Court's warning that further meritless filings in this case will result in an injunction restricting the Plaintiff from making future filings without permission of the Court.
Thus, the Court now finds it appropriate to enjoin the Plaintiff from filing future filings in this case without permission of the Court. Additionally, as the Court has previously warned the Plaintiff, further frivolous filings may result in an assessment of a fine against the Plaintiff. See 5A C.A. WRIGHT, A.R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE PROCEDURE § 1338 at 139 (2d ed. 1990) (noting that a fine may be imposed against a pro se litigant filing frivolous litigation and that the cost of a single hour spent by a federal judge on a case costs taxpayers approximately $600 and $200 per hour for members of the judge's staff), citing Lapin v. United States, 118 F.R.D. 632, 646 (D.C. Haw. 1987), citing LEVIN COLLINS, CONTAINING THE COST OF LITIGATION 37 Rutgers L.Rev. 219 (1985).
The Court has reviewed the file, pending Motion and is fully informed. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse, filed May 27, 2003, Ct. Rec. 204, is DENIED.
2. The hearing set for June 2, 2003 shall be STRICKEN.
3. PLAINTIFF BILL MAX OVERTON IS HEREBY ENJOINED FROM MAKING FURTHER FILINGS IN THIS CASE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COURT. If Plaintiff desires to make future, non-frivolous filings in this court, he shall file a motion seeking relief from the Court's injunction. Any such motion shall specifically state why the claim is not frivolous and/or has not been previously fully considered by this Court or another court. The Court reiterates its warning regarding frivolous filings and the potential assessment of a fine against the Plaintiff.
The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order, provide copies to pro se Plaintiff and defense counsel.