Windsor v. Hatten et al
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 225 MOTION to Modify Injunction. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 2/12/18. (jkl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,
CIVIL ACTION FILE
JAMES N. HATTEN, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a pro se civil action against the Clerk of this Court and various
judges of this Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and others. It
is before the Court on the Plaintiff William Windsor’s Motion to Modify
Injunction [Doc. 225].
As a result of the Plaintiff’s overly burdensome,
vexatious, and frivolous litigiousness, this Court previously issued an injunction
prohibiting the Plaintiff from filing any further actions without prior approval
from a federal district court. The Plaintiff complains that the injunction is overly
broad, and now petitions the Court to modify it in four ways, in order to clarify
that 1) appeals of existing cases are not covered, 2) approval is not required for
criminal complaints or protective orders, 3) the injunction does not cover state
court matters, and 4) to eliminate the bond requirement. The Plaintiff’s motion
is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. The Court’s injunction is hereby
modified to read as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff, William M. Windsor, and
any parties acting in concert with him or at his behest, are PERMANENTLY
ENJOINED from filing any complaint or initiating any proceeding, including
any new lawsuit or administrative proceeding, in any court (state or federal) or
agency in the United States without first obtaining leave of a federal district
court in the district in which the new complaint or proceeding is to be filed. In
seeking such leave, the Plaintiff must present any such court with a copy of this
Order. If the lawsuit or administrative proceeding names federal judges or court
employees, the Plaintiff must also tender a $50,000.00 cash bond or a $50,000.00
corporate surety bond sufficient to satisfy an award of Rule 11 sanctions since
such actions are presumably frivolous.
The above restrictions do not apply to appeals in actions already in
existence on July 15, 2011, criminal complaints, or petitions for protective orders
the Plaintiff feels necessary to protect his personal safety. However, any
proceedings – whether criminal or civil – initiated against any judge or
government employee for actions taken in the course of their official duties are
still enjoined according to the restrictions outlined above. Failure to obey this
Order, including by attempting to avoid or circumvent the intent of this Order,
will be grounds for sanctions including contempt.
SO ORDERED, this 12th day of February, 2018.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge
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?