United States of America v. Myers

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/13/2011: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
This Court’s December 5, 2011 memorandum order (“Order”) was
its most recent response to the seemingly endless and persistent
(indeed, persistently groundless) efforts by Ernest Myers
(“Myers”) to challenge his repeatedly upheld conviction and
sentence.

Understandably, the government was swift in complying

with the Order’s “direct[ive] to file a response as to the
relevance or lack of relevance of Myers’ assertions as to Rodney
Bew”--after all, government counsel have been living with Myers’
abuse of the litigation process just as long as this Court.
In light of the government’s December 9 response, this Court
frankly sees no need to waste further efforts in generating “an
expanded ruling on [Myers’ two motions after receiving that
response],” as the Order had contemplated--instead it simply
adopts the analysis in the government’s response as to the two
procedural defects and one substantive defect in Myers’
submission, any one of which flaws would be fatal to his current

motions.

Both motions were denied without prejudice in the

Order, and that ruling is reconfirmed here.
To turn to the Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 11 consideration set
out at the outset of the Order, there is no question that Myers
has flouted the requirements of Rule 11(b) repeatedly.
Rule 11(c)(4) imposes the requirement that any sanction for
Rule 11(b) violations “must be limited to what suffices to deter
repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others
similarly situated.”

In accordance with the further provisions

of that Rule:
1.

This Court recommends to the Executive Committee of

this District Court that Myers be added to the list of
persons from whom no further filings will be accepted
without express prior consent by the Executive Committee.
2.

Because that limitation might well be insufficient

as a deterrent (Myers’ prior conduct suggests that he might
simply continue his bombardment of groundless filings,
thereafter taking the form of requests for leave directed to
the Executive Committee), it is appropriate to consider
imposition of a financial sanction.

At the same time, this

Court has no desire to create a financial hardship for
Myers.

Accordingly he is ordered to file on or before

2

January 5, 2012 a financial statement reflecting his assets
and liabilities and his income from all sources.1

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

December 13, 2011

1

This directive is obviously an exception to the
limitation on further filings that may be imposed in accordance
with the above-numbered paragraph 1--so long, that is, as Myers
does not seize on the filing required in the text as the occasion
to renew his earlier groundless attacks.
3