Whitfield, Ronald Dwayne
WR-25,869-90
| Tex. App. | Oct 23, 2015Background
- Pro se petitioner Ronald Dwayne Whitfield filed numerous motions and broadized petitions (including motions for rehearing, leave to file, and to reopen closed cases) and multiple filings accusing state and federal judges of misconduct and asking courts to declare prior judgments and sanction orders void for want of jurisdiction.
- A United States District Court (S.D. Tex., Houston) order by Judge Melinda Harmon (Oct. 14, 2015) noted Whitfield is subject to a preexisting filing bar and denied his recent motions (Docket Nos. 127, 129, 130) and ordered them stricken from the record.
- Whitfield’s filings advance a repeated legal theory that many prior judgments are void ab initio when courts lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction or failed to afford due process; he sought in forma pauperis status and relief including mandamus, habeas, and complaints of judicial misconduct.
- Whitfield cites a wide set of authorities and cases (federal and state) arguing that void judgments may be attacked anytime and that relief from void judgments under Rule 60(b)(4) is mandatory rather than discretionary.
- The district court’s action here is a procedural disposal of Whitfield’s newly-filed motions because of the existing injunction against him filing pleadings rather than an adjudication on the merits of his constitutional and jurisdictional theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Whitfield may file additional pleadings despite a court-imposed filing bar | Whitfield argued the court must accept and rule on his motions asserting void judgments and requesting rehearing or reopening | Court (through clerk/defense) relies on prior order imposing a filing restriction barring further filings without permission | Court denied the newly-filed motions and ordered them stricken because Whitfield is subject to a filing bar |
| 2) Whether sanction orders and prior judgments are void for want of jurisdiction | Whitfield contends many prior orders are void ab initio when courts lacked SMJ or personal jurisdiction or violated due process, so they can be attacked anytime | Respondent courts treat those orders as valid until set aside through proper procedures; where an applicant is barred from filing, merits not reached | District court did not reach merits; it enforced the procedural filing restriction and denied motions asserting voidness |
| 3) Whether denial of in forma pauperis and attendant sanction can be enforced absent jurisdictional finding | Whitfield argued denial of IFP and imposition of sanctions were themselves void because the court lacked power to act | Courts maintain authority to regulate filings and to impose conditions or sanctions under governing statutes and rules when appropriate | District court relied on the existing sanction/filing bar and struck further filings; it did not adopt Whitfield’s contention that the earlier orders are void |
| 4) Proper procedural remedy for alleged void judgments (e.g., Rule 60(b)(4), mandamus, collateral attack) | Whitfield urged mandatory relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and invoked mandamus and other extraordinary writs to vacate prior orders | Courts require proper procedural posture, jurisdiction, and compliance with filing requirements before entertaining such remedies | Court refused to entertain new petitions because of the filing bar; no merits disposition on availability of specific remedies was made |
Key Cases Cited
- Export Group v. Reef, 54 F.3d 1466 (9th Cir. 1995) (Rule 60(b)(4) and de novo review of void-judgment determinations)
- Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 1994) (when relief under rule for void judgments applies, relief is mandatory)
- Jaffe v. Van Brunt, 158 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (judgments entered in violation of due process must be set aside)
- Elliot v. Piersol, 26 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1828) (judgments issued without authority are nullities)
- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (U.S. 1878) (due process and limits on state-court power to bind absent proper service/authority)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (personal jurisdiction and due process principles)
- Klugh v. United States, 610 F. Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985) (discussion of void judgments where court lacked jurisdiction or due process)