From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. U.S. Dist. Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Oct 11, 2011
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-098 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-098

10-11-2011

ANDRE WILLIAMS, TDCJ-CID #12312494, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ET AL.


ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS

AND ADVISING PLAINTIFF OF POSSIBLE SANCTIONS

By Order of Dismissal and Final Judgment entered April 18, 2011, the Court dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim plaintiff's § 1983 civil rights action in which he alleged that federal judge Nancy Atlas violated his constitutional rights when she dismissed as time barred his § 2254 habeas corpus petition. (D.E. 8, 9). Since the dismissal of this action, plaintiff has continued to file numerous frivolous motions in an attempt to restate and reargue his frivolous claims. (See e.g. D.E. 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26). Most recently, plaintiff has filed (1) a motion for extension of time to file an appellate in forma pauperis application (D.E. 28); a "motion for notice of objection to the Court's lack of jurisdiction to dismiss plaintiff's Bivens action (D.E. 29); and a "motion for adjudication of plaintiff's actually filed Bivens action (D.E. 31).

In the pending motions, plaintiff insists again that the Court misconstrued his original complaint. These same arguments were previously raised and rejected in the Court's orders denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment (D.E. 11), and denying plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. (D.E. 24). Moreover, plaintiff has filed previously six motions for extensions of time to appeal the dismissal of this action and the post-judgment orders denying review or relief, alleging "good cause," when in fact, it is obvious that the motions were filed for the single purpose of burdening the Court with frivolous pleadings. His instant motion for an extension of time (D.E. 28), is no different.

Accordingly, plaintiff's pending motions (D.E. 28, 29, and 31) are DENIED.

Moreover, plaintiff is advised and warned that any future filings relating to his alleged claims against Judge Atlas that the Court deems frivolous will result in monetary and/or other sanctions.

ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2011.

Janis Graham Jack

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Williams v. U.S. Dist. Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Oct 11, 2011
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-098 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2011)
Case details for

Williams v. U.S. Dist. Court

Case Details

Full title:ANDRE WILLIAMS, TDCJ-CID #12312494, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ET AL.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

Date published: Oct 11, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-098 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2011)