Noble v. Stark et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 1 Petition. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 5/14/2018. (asw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re:
THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Movant.
THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Plaintiff,
V.
CHIEF JUDGE LEONARD STARK,
et al. ,
Defendants.
)
)
) Misc. Action No. 18-147-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM
1.
Introduction . The movant Thomas E. Noble ("movant"), a prose litigant
incarcerated at FDC Philadelphia in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has engaged in filing numerous
lawsuits that contain frivolous legal arguments that are vexatious and abuse the judicial process.1
On September 13, 2004, then United States District Judge Kent A. Jordan entered an order
enjoining the movant from filing any prose 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. 03-906KAJ, the movant was given notice to show cause why injunctive relief should not issue, see
1
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has described the movant as a
serial litigator, filing over five dozen lawsuits in federal district courts, including over thirty
complaints in this District Court. In re Noble, 663 F. App'x 188, 189 (3d Cir. 2016) (per
curium).
Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1987); he responded to the show cause order,
but "did not 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 the movant did not appeal. In 2016, the 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 the movant was not entitled to
mandamus relief vacating the district court's filing injunction, and he was not entitled to a 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 . On May 7, 2018, the moving filed a petition and affidavit for
counter-prosecution and arrest and indictment of the defendants -- two current judges and one
former judge of this District Court -- for conspiracy to abet and cover-up crimes by employees of
the State of Delaware. The movant asks for leave to file only copy of documents and for leave to
proceed in continuation of in forma pauperis status given that he received this status by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He explains that his financial status has not
changed. He also asks the court to provide him "real pens, bond paper, postage-paid envelopes ..
,, (D.1. 1.)
3.
The movant does not explain why he should be given leave to commence a new
action. The proposed complaint is construed as alleging both civil rights violations under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 as cited by the movant and seeking criminal prosecution against the defendants.
The movant brings his petition "under the Constitution of the United States, its amendments, and
the Bill of Rights, which, together are the supreme law of the land, and which does empower
[him] as ' we the people' citizen, to make a citizen's arrest of any person who has committed
2
crimes; in conjunction with the All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651] and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
1985." (D.I. 1.)
4.
The movant states that he is a law abiding citizen who broke no constitutionally
legitimate criminal law, he has been wrongfully detained since October 5, 2017, and he is the
victim of a conspiracy that includes the named defendants and others. The movant alleges that
he asked Chief United States District Court Judge Stark to have the United States Attorney
criminally prosecute Delaware officials, but "apparently got the U.S. Attorney to prosecute" the
movant instead. The movant alleges that the year before, United States District Court Judge
Robinson similarly colluded with Delaware officials to abet and cover-up their crimes and other
violations, and this was followed by Judge Stark's allegedly covering-up Judge Robinson's
cover-up by "sweeping related case C.A. No. 17-353 under the proverbial rug." (Id.) The
movant alleges that United States District Court Judge Andrews "similarly filed falsified
documents to abet and cover-up said crimes and other violations in Misc. No. 17-358," and
covered-up for Chief Judge Stark by doing so and then falsely categorizing Misc. No. 18-111.
(Id.)
5.
The movant alleges in conclusory manner that the defendants "serially committed
felony crimes, including obstruction of justice, conspiracy, falsification of documents filed by
them, and making false statements. All not shielded by judicial immunity. Especially those
crimes of an administrative or ministerial nature." He refers to the acts as "a pattern of ongoing
racketeering activity" for the purposes of prosecution under the RICO Act.
6.
The movant seeks leave to file criminal charges, arrest, and prosecute the
defendants. "[T]he United States Attorney is responsible for the prosecution of all criminal cases
3
within his or her district." See United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531 , 1539 (3d Cir. 1996). In
addition, the decision of whether to prosecute, and what criminal charges to bring, generally rests
with the prosecutor. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979). To the extent
that the movant seeks to impose criminal liability upon the defendants, he lacks standing to
proceed. See Allen v. Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 270 F. App ' x 149, 150 (3d
Cir. 2008) (unpublished). The proposed claim are frivolous .
7.
In addition, it is clear from his filing that the movant takes exception to judicial
rulings made by the defendants . The defendants have absolute judicial immunity, despite the
movant' s statement to the contrary. "A judicial officer in the performance of his duties has
absolute immunity from suit and will not be liable for his judicial acts. " Capogrosso v. The
Supreme Court of New Jersey, 588 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Azubuko v. Royal, 443
F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir. 2006)). "A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he
took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be
subject to liability only when he has acted ' in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. "'. Id.
(citations omitted). Despite his conclusory allegations, the movant has not set forth any facts that
would show that any of the judges acted in the absence of jurisdiction. In reviewing the
allegations, it is clear that the proposed complaint does not state cognizable claims and there is
no curative amendment.
8.
Conclusion. In accordance with Judge Jordan's September 13, 2004 order that
enjoins the movant from filing new civil rights cases, the movant' s motion for leave to file a
complaint (D.I. 1) will be denied and all other motions contained therein will be denied as moot.
See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (the court has inherent authority "to
4
manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases."). A
separate order shall issue.
~ ~--1--
2018
elaware
-+--'
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?