Noble v. Stark

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/9/2018. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re:
THOMAS E. NOBLE,

Misc. Action No. 17-358-RGA

Movant.

THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Petitioner,

v.
CHIEF JUDGE LEONARD STARK,

s

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM
1.

Introduction. Movant Thomas A Noble ("movant"), a pro se litigant

incarcerated at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware,
has engaged in filing numerous lawsuits that contain frivolous legal arguments that are
vexatious and abuse the judicial process. 1 On September 13, 2004, United States
District Judge Kent A Jordan 2 entered an order enjoining Movant from filing any pro se
civil rights complaints without prior approval of the Court. See Noble v. Becker, Civ. No.
03-906-KAJ, D.I. 12. In Noble v. Becker, Civ. No. 03-906-KAJ, movant was given
notice to show cause why injunctive relief should not issue, see Gagliardi v. McWilliams,
834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1987); he responded to the show cause order, but "did not
1

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has described Movant
as a serial litigator, filing over five dozen lawsuits in federal district courts, including over
30 complaints in this District Court. In re Noble, 663 F. App'x 188, 189 (3d Cir. 2016).
2

ln 2006, Judge Jordan was elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

I
I

show cause" why the order should not be entered (see Civ. No. 03-906-KAJ, D.I. 7 and
D.I. 12 at 4). The barring order issued, and Movant did not appeal. In 2016, Movant
sought mandamus relief to vacate the filing injunction and, when it was denied,
appealed to the Third Circuit. On October 6, 2016, the Third Circuit held that Movant
was not entitled to mandamus relief vacating the district court's filing injunction, and he
was not entitled to writ of mandamus for review of the district court's enforcement of the
filing injunction. In re Noble, 663 F. App'x at 190.
2.

Discussion. Movant requests leave to file a petition against Chief Judge

Leonard Stark. (D.I. 1). In the petition he moves to reopen and transfer to a district
court not in the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit, Noble v. State of Delaware, Civ. No. 17353-LPS (D. Del. 2017), a case dismissed on November 7, 2017. (See id. at D.I. 34,
35). A motion for reconsideration filed in Civ. No. 17-353-LPS, has been denied. (See
id. at D.I. 42, 43). Movant filed a similar petition in the Third Circuit on December 12,
2017, docketed as a petition for writ of mandamus, In re Noble, No. 17-3814 (3d Cir.).
In this case and in No. 17-3814, Movant filed similar motions to proceed in forma
pauperis, for copy work, and for leave to file only copy of his documents.
3.

Movant contends leave to file is appropriate because throughout the years

this District Court and the Third Circuit have colluded to serially effectively rob Movant
of all his rights, this District Court has not addressed issues he has raised, and he
disagrees with court rulings, Judge Stark has "obstructed justice and filed falsified
documents in a ministerial non-judicial capacity" and Movant needs to add him as a
defendant, and Judge Stark and other judges in this District Court and the Third Circuit

2

I

I

I
1

1

t
t

I

I

have serially colluded with State employees to effectively abet the countless ongoing
felony crimes against Movant.
4.

It is evident that Movant petitions for leave to file a new proceeding (which

is construed as alleging civil rights violations) because he is unhappy with rulings from
various judges in this District, including the recent rulings made by Judge Stark in Civ.
No. 17-353-LPS, and apparently believes he will receive a more favorable ruling if Civ.
No. 17-353-LPS is heard in a different district court. Movant, however, petitions to
reopen and transfer a case that has been dismissed and reconsideration has been
denied. Should he choose to file an appeal, Movant may seek relief from the Third
Circuit for appellate review. Finally, Movant has filed duplicative pleadings and seeks
the same or similar relief from the Third Circuit in No. 17-3814, which is now
considering the matter. As Judge Jordan stated, "[w]hen reviewing Noble's complaint
history, a pattern becomes clear. After the dismissal of his claims, rather than file an
appeal as required by the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure, Noble simply
files new lawsuits and demands further review." In re Noble, 663 Fed. App'x at 189. It
is evident that Movant continues to litigate in the same manner as described by Judge
Jordan.
5.

Conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with Judge Jordan's September

13, 2004 order that enjoins Movant from filing new cases, Movant's motion for leave to
file a petition (D.I. 1) will be denied and all other motions will be dismissed as moot (D.I.
2, 4, 5). See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (the court has inherent
authority "to manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases."). A separate order shall issue.

3

!

f

I