Opinion
MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO. C-08-2.
February 8, 2008
ORDER
On this day came on to be considered Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (D.E. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner's motion is hereby DENIED.
I. Background
Petitioner is contumacious litigator who has filed over sixty actions in federal district court. See In re: Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, No. 2:07-cv-114 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2007 Order at 2) ("A recent review of Whitfield's litigation history shows that he has filed more than sixty (60) civil actions in federal district court.") His conduct has resulted in repeated and significant monetary sanctions. See e.g., In re Whitfield, No. 97-00454 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 1997 Order) ($100); Whitfield v. Johnson, No. 4:94-cv-02767 (S.D. Tex Mar. 5, 2001 Order Striking Pleadings and May 12, 2000 Order Striking Pleadings and Imposing Sanction) ($1500); Whitfield v. Ott, No. 4:00-cv-2367 (S.D. Tex. July 14, 2000 Order) ($200); Whitfield v. Johnson, No. 4:97-cv-3148 (S.D. Tex. April 22, 1999 Order on Motion) ($200); Whitfield v. Webb, No. 4:94-cv-4191 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 1996 Order) ($25);Whitfield v. Collins, No. 4:94-cv-2630 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 1996 Order) ($50); Whitfield v. State of Texas, et al., No. 1:95-cv-023 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 1995 Order) ($250). In In re Whitfield, No. 97-00454 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 1997 Order), the Fifth Circuit stated:
We impose upon Whitfield a sanction in the amount of $100, payable to the Clerk of this court. Until such sanction is paid in full, the Clerk of this court is directed to accept no further notices of appeal, motions, or other pleadings filed by Whitfield. Even after the sanction is paid, the Clerk of this court is directed to accept no further notices of appeal, motions, or other pleadings from Whitfield unless Whitfield has obtained permission to file them from a judge of this court.
(Emphasis added.) Furthermore, in Whitfield v. Prasifka, et al., No. 2:03-cv-001 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2003 Order), this Court stated:
[I]t is ORDERED that Plaintiff is . . . barred from filing any pleadings in this division until such time as he can demonstrate that prior financial sanctions [ i.e. , the sanctions listed above] have been paid in full, except upon written leave of court.
(Emphasis added.) The docket sheets in the aforementioned cases do not reflect, and Petitioner has provided the Court with no evidence, that any of the aforementioned monetary sanctions have been paid.
On January 4, 2008, Petitioner filed the present Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with the Court. (D.E. 1.) Petitioner seeks to challenge his conviction in cause number 617,718 in the 174th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas on the basis that he "was not `charged' nor `convicted' under Texas nor federal law." (D.E. 1 at 2, ¶ 2.) He argues that "no `judgment' has been `rendered,'" only "an `unsigned' non-rendered `opinion issued.'" (Id.) The state court records filed by Petitioner with his motion, however, demonstrate that Petitioner was convicted of "burglary of a building with intent to commit theft" after a jury trial. (D.E. 1; see also Whitfield v. State, No. 14-05-00172-CR, No. 14-05-00173-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 1617, *1 (Tex.App. Mar. 3, 2005)).
II. Discussion
III. Conclusion
Balawajder v. Scott160 F.3d 10661067-1068Umar v. McVea81 F.3d 157Murphy v. Scott 56 F.3d 1385pro se Clark v. United States52 F.3d 1066 in forma pauperis. See Schmidt v. Van Buren243 Fed. Appx. 803 804pro se Whitfield v. Prasifka, et al. In Forma Pauperis
SIGNED and ORDERED.