Reynolds v. Ryan et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying 4 Motion to Set Aside or Dismiss or Strike the Termination of the case, Reopen Case. Plaintiff's identical motion in 08-1201-Court repeats the relevant ruling in that case. Plaintiff is WARNED that any future frivolous filings i n this case will be STRICKEN and will not be considered by the Court. Plaintiff is further WARNED that if she persists in filing additional lawsuits against these Defendants arising out of the same circumstances OR files additional lawsuits that are clearly frivolous she will be subject to additional sanctions including, but not limited to, striking of complaints that are filed without prior court aproval. Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 2/19/2010. (cc:Pla)(HK, ilcd)

Friday, 19 February, 2010 04:00:56 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

E-FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
SUSAN REYNOLDS-LANGSTON, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE H. RYAN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 09-cv-1253

O P I N I O N and O R D E R
Before the Court is the "Petition to Set Aside or Dismiss or Strike the Termination of the Above Case or Cases" filed by Plaintiff, Susan ReynoldsLangston, on October 26, 2009 [Doc. 4]. The Motion is DENIED Plaintiff has filed an identical Motion in case 08-cv-1201. The Court repeats the relevant ruling in that case: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party to file a motion for relief from judgment for a variety of reasons that justify relief. Such a motion must be filed within a reasonable time. FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff offers no rationale reason why this Court's judgment should be set aside. Indeed, Plaintiff's filing just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This Court retains the inherent power to impose sanctions and control litigation before it. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991); Mach v. Will County Sheriff, 580 F.3d 495, 502 (7th Cir. 2009) (indicating that the Court should use caution in the exercise of such authority). After judgment was entered in a previously filed case, 08-cv-1201, Plaintiff attempted to resurrect her claims by

filing this lawsuit. This matter was dismissed on August 11, 2009 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and this Court noted that the claims were incoherent and failed to state a claim. Again unsatisfied with this Court's rulings (and indeed the Seventh Circuit's findings in the previous lawsuit), Plaintiff has filed the present "petition" in both cases. As noted above, the Petition is nonsensical and warrants no relief. In light of this conclusion, Plaintiffs continued filings can only be designed to harass Defendants and unnecessarily multiply these proceedings. Therefore, Plaintiff is WARNED that any future frivolous filings in this case will be STRICKEN and will not be considered by the Court. Plaintiff is further WARNED that if she persists in filing additional lawsuits against these Defendants arising out of the same circumstances OR files additional lawsuits that are clearly frivolous she will be subject to additional sanctions including, but not limited to, the striking of complaints that are filed without prior Court approval.1

Entered this 19th day of February, 2010

s/ Joe B. McDade JOE BILLY MCDADE United States District Judge

The Court takes notice that in 2000 and 2001 Plaintiff filed three lawsuits in this District that were dismissed at the pleading stage. (00-cv-3335, 01-cv-1188, and 01cv-1344)
1

2