Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

KARL JULIUS JAMES, Plaintiff, Case Nos. 97-C-367 97-C-512 -vsGARY R. McCAUGHTRY, Defendant/Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

Karl Julius James is a repetitive filer of frivolous pleadings and lawsuits in this judicial district. In 1997, in Case No. 2:97-CV-367-RTR, the Court entered a Mack order against Mr. James. See Support Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995). The order directed the clerk to return unfiled any papers submitted to this District by or on behalf of Mr. James, with certain enumerated exceptions, one of which is the filing of a petition for habeas relief. Now before the Court is James' motion to lift this filing bar. In the years since the Court's initial Mack order, James continued to inundate this Court, and other branches of this judicial district, with frivolous filings. For example, in 2007, James filed six motions in a habeas action that was closed ten years earlier, James v. McCaughtry, Case No. 2:97-CV-512-RTR, "all in a vain attempt to either re-open [the] case or to disqualify the presiding judge." D. 41. The Court warned James that he would be sanctioned if he continued to file frivolous pleadings. Despite that warning, James recently

filed a "Motion for Court to decide application to proceed in forma pauperis and to determine jurisdiction in the above enlisted action" in that case. In 2007, James also filed a separate action that was docketed as a habeas petition, James v. Thurmer, 1:07-CV-735-WCG. Judge Griesbach dismissed that petition on initial review. James proceeded to file numerous motions, including a motion to disqualify. Once again, these motions were dismissed as frivolous and James was warned to stop filing frivolous motions. Accordingly, since the Court's original Mack order, James continued his pattern of (1) filing a frivolous pleading; (2) receiving a negative decision; and (3) filing a motion to disqualify the judge who issued the decision. Under these circumstances, the Court sees no justification to lift the Mack order. If anything, James' most recent filings give the Court occasion to refine and reinforce the restriction. Repeated filings in closed habeas cases should not be excepted from the filing bar, and James should be barred from filing repeated habeas petitions which relate to non-custodial state actions. See Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956, 957-58 (7th Cir. 2004). NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. 2. James' motion to lift the filing bar [D. 81 in Case No. 97-C-367] is DENIED; James' motion to decide application and determine jurisdiction [D. 42 in Case

No. 97-C-512] is DENIED;

-2-

3.

James is barred from filing any further cases or documents in this judicial

district. The Clerk of Court is directed to return unfiled any documents or legal actions from Mr. James, with the following exceptions.

Download 28283.pdf

Wisconsin Law