United States of America v. Myers

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/24/2012: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 13, 2011 memorandum order (“Order”)
not only dispatched the most recent of what it termed “the
seemingly endless and persistent (indeed, persistently
groundless) efforts by Ernest Myers (‘Myers’) to challenge his
repeatedly upheld conviction and sentence” but also went on to
consider measures that might stem the tide of what had long since
developed into a major abuse of the system.

That has now been

accomplished in part by the January 20 order of the District
Court’s Executive Committee adding Myers to the list of persons
barred from the filing of new cases without express prior
consent.

This memorandum order therefore speaks primarily to the

possibility of imposing a financial sanction because of his
filings in this earlier case.
In that respect all that Myers has done is to provide a
printout reflecting deposits during the time frame from April
through December 2011 to his trust fund account at Oxford FCI,

where he is serving his custodial sentence, as though this Court
had inquired as to his ability to qualify for in forma pauperis
status under 28 U.S.C. §1915.

It had not--instead this Court had

ordered Myers to file by January 5 “a financial statement
reflecting his assets and liabilities and his income from all
sources.”

That order is therefore renewed, with a new deadline

of February 8, 2012.1
But something more should be added as to the nature of the
Executive Committee’s addition of Myers to the restricted filer
list, which as indicated earlier focuses its standard prohibition
on litigants who persist in launching groundless new litigation.
By contrast, Myers’ paper avalanche regularly carries the same
case caption as this memorandum order.

Hence Myers is warned

that this case is over--that anything further from him that would
carry this case caption and pursue the same goals as his numerous
earlier filings will be treated as violating (and therefore in
contempt of) this Court’s prohibitory order.

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

January 24, 2012

1

By way of example, Dkt. 67 comprises Myers’ motion that
couples his purported compliance with this Court’s financial
statement order (something that is denied for the reasons stated
in the text) with a requested investigation of Rodney Bew, a
request that is denied out of hand because it is still another
effort to thresh old straw.
2