United States of America v. Myers

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/5/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,
v.
ERNEST MYERS #18545-424,
Movant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 10 C 4511
(06 CR 174-3)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Ernest Myers (“Myers”) is not only indefatigable (a
characterization employed in this Court’s brief April 5, 2011
memorandum order, even before Myers’ current submissions) but
obviously believes that he can continue to dispute his earlieraffirmed conviction and to persist in a time-barred 28 U.S.C.
§2255 motion, both cost-free.

But Myers is mistaken:

Fed. R.

Civ. P. (“Rule”) 11 applies to unrepresented parties as well as
to lawyers, and Rule 11(c) allows the imposition of appropriate
sanctions for violations of the obligation to tender only filings
that satisfy the Rule 11(b) standard of objective good faith.
Now, shortly after this Court’s issuance of still another
brief memorandum order on November 10, 2011 (only the most recent
of a host of memoranda this Court has had to generate in
connection with Myers’ numerous filings), Myers has come forward
with two new documents, respectively headed:
Motion for a more definite statement pursuant to the
First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment; and

Rule 10 of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure,
inclusive of procedural due process to prevent a
miscarriage of Justice.
Petition for the Court to issue order[s] to the United
States Marshal to serve a Subpoena Deuces Tecum to
Warden Catherine Linaweaver at M.C.C., downtown
Chicago...pursuant to the First, Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure Rule 17 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 45.
Neither of those motions can be granted as filed--instead both
are denied without prejudice.
In light of this Court’s current consideration of the
possibility of imposing sanctions on Myers, the United States
Attorney is directed to file a response as to the relevance or
lack of relevance of Myers’ assertions as to Rodney Bew.

This

Court plans to issue an expanded ruling on the two motions after
receiving that response.
In the meantime, no further filings will be accepted from
Myers.

In that respect, when a litigant evidences a pattern of

abusing the privilege of access to the courts, this District
Court’s Executive Committee has not been hesitant to enter an
order forbidding future filings except upon terms set out in the
Executive Committee’s order.

It remains to be seen whether such

an order will be called for here.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

December 5, 2011
2