Green v. CarlsonGreen v. Carlson
Clovis Carl Green, Jr., brings tо us yet another congeries of pro se motions demanding special treatment, instant actiоn, mandamus, habeas corpus, etc. Green, the instigator of hundreds of frivolous and malicious pro sе actions,1 is the subject of a recent order of this court, filed April 27, 1981, and appended at the foot. The motions before us, filed April 20, are not controlled by that order.
We have therefore carefully examined them and find them to be frivolous, advanced in forma pauperis, and void of claim that Green‘s constitutional rights have been invaded by reason of physical harm or threats to Green‘s person. As such, they continue Green‘s “pattern of malicious and frivolous filings” noted in our earlier order. Prisoners and others have honest claims upon our limited capacities of time and judgment. The attention which Green‘s spurious ones have demanded insures that other claims of arguable merit must tarry. In the event that Green‘s pattern continues, we commend the contempt sanction to any panel upon which he seeks to impose. Today we forbear, since the instant flock were prepared and presented before the entry of our order appended. They are
DISMISSED.
APPENDIX
BY THE COURT:
This Court has considered petitioner‘s various motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, expedited appeal, appointment of counsel, consolidation, writs of mаndamus, and other motions.
Petitioner has a lengthy history of filing numerous suits in various courts throughout the country. Seе, e. g., Green v. Camper, 477 F.Supp. 758, 759-68 (W.D. Mo. 1979) (listing over 500 cases filed by petitioner in state and federal courts). These courts have recognized that petitioner has repeatedly abused the judicial process and some have barred further filings by him. See, e. g., Green v. White, 616 F.2d 1054 (8th Cir. 1980); In re Green, 598 F.2d 1126 (8th Cir. 1979); In re Green, No. 80-1039 (D.C. Cir., Aug. 29, 1980) (order instructing Clerk not to file any further papers by petitioner); Green v. Wyrick, 428 F.Supp. 732 (W.D. Mo. 1976).
No one, rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the judicial process. Hardwick v. Brinson, 523 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1975). Flagrant abuse of the judicial process can enable one person to preempt the use of judicial time that propеrly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants. See Camper, 477 F.Supp. at 770-71.
The same pattern оf malicious and frivolous filings is now apparent in this Circuit. Recognizing the need to curtail further frivolous and mаlicious filings, this Court will invoke its general supervisory power to control its docket.
IT IS ORDERED that the above-numbered cases be consolidated, transferred to the general docket, and submitted to a panel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that although petitioner has not complied with
IT APPEARING to this Court that all of the petitions either аre frivolous, malicious, or repetitive, not taken in good faith, or fail to state a claim upоn which relief can be granted;
AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of establishing a strong showing оf necessity for issuing writs of mandamus;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of petitioner‘s other petitions and motions are hereby dеnied.
IT FURTHER APPEARING to this Court that petitioner‘s malicious abuse of the process of this Court and the procеss of the District Courts within this Circuit is overburdening this Court and said District Courts;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the Clerk of this Court shall not accept for filing any further petitions for writs of habeas corpus or mandamus submitted by petitioner, except as herein provided; (2) the Clerk of this Court shall not accept for filing any other petition or any complаint, motion, or other pleading that is accompanied by an application for leavе to file or proceed in forma pauperis, except as herein provided; (3) an exсeption is made to this Order for any petitions, complaints, motions, or other pleadings that specifically allege constitutional deprivation by reason of physical harm or threats to рetitioner‘s person;
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District Courts within this Circuit may refuse to accept for filing any petitions, cоmplaints, motions, or other pleadings that are accompanied by applications for leave to file or proceed in forma pauperis, except for those petitiоns, complaints, motions, or other pleadings that specifically allege constitutional deрrivation by reason of physical harm or threats to petitioner‘s person; for cases within the аbove exception, the usual procedure under