White v. USA

Filing 116

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice; GRANTING 103 Attorney Osman's Motion Waiving Attorney Fees and Requesting Reimbursement of Costs of $35.50; MODIFYING 102 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Revoking In Forma Pauperis Status as fo llows: White's 99 Motion to Dismiss Counsel is GRANTED (Attorney Blane Osman is RELIEVED from any and all further obligations to represent White in this case. White is ORDERED to remit $35.50 directly to Attorney Osman on or before Octobe r 25, 2021. Attorney Osman is EXEMPT from pro bono appointments made from the District's Pro Bono Panel for the next five (5) years); and INSTITUTING a two-year FILING RESTRICTION against William White in this District that is independent of the restriction imposed in Case No. 20-cv-01117-JPG. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 9/27/2021. (jsy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM A. WHITE, 13888-084,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-00683-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
The question before this Court is whether additional sanctions are warranted against
Plaintiff William White for material omissions in his application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (See Docs. 2, 3, and 9). White’s omission of income and assets from his IFP
application resulted in a finding of indigence that allowed him to avoid prepayment of the full
filing and docketing fee for this action while also receiving pro bono representation for more than
three years. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a), (e)(1). On December 23, 2020, this Court entered an Order
revoking his IFP status, requiring him to pay the remaining $50.00 filing fee, and dismissing the
case with prejudice, subject to further consideration of what, if any, additional sanctions should be
imposed against him. (Doc. 102). White was specifically ordered to show cause why he should
not be required to pay some portion of his attorney’s fees and costs.
White’s court-recruited counsel, Attorney Blane Osman, filed a Motion Waiving Attorney
Fees and Requesting Reimbursement of Certain Costs (Doc. 103) on January 8, 2021. White filed
a Response (Doc. 113) to the show cause order on May 3, 2021. The Court has reviewed these
submissions.

1

The Court now finds that White has not demonstrated why he should avoid sanctions in
connection with his IFP application, and he has given the Court additional reasons why sanctions
are necessary to prevent further abusive litigation in this District. Therefore, Attorney Osman’s
Motion Waiving Attorney Fees and Requesting Reimbursement of Costs of $35.50 (Doc. 103)
shall be GRANTED, and White shall also be subject to a two-year FILING RESTRICTION.1
Background
White disclosed no wages, income, or assets in his application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) in this case in mid-2017. (See Docs. 2, 3, and 9). On the basis of this application,
which was supported by a trust fund account statement showing an average daily balance of
$375.45 in the 6-month period preceding the action (Doc. 17), the Court determined that White
was poverty-stricken and qualified to proceed IFP without prepaying the full $400.00 filing fee for
this action in September 2017. (Doc. 23). The following month, based on this same finding of
indigence, the Court concluded that White was unable to afford an attorney and granted his motion
for court-recruited counsel. (Doc. 30) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)).
For more than three years, White litigated this case to the extreme. He filed three
complaints. (Docs. 1, 8, and 49). The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) set forth a dozen claims
against the United States—three of which were dismissed without prejudice at screening as being
obviously unexhausted and four of which were already dismissed with prejudice in prior actions.
(See Doc. 16). The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 49) set forth claims against the United
States that arose at fifteen prisons and jails in ten federal judicial districts between 2008 and 2017.
(Id.). The body of the complaint spanned 122 pages, 719 paragraphs, and 54 claims. (Id.). It
included an additional 18 pages of exhibits, for a total of 140 typewritten pages. (Id.). Defendant

1

This filing restriction is separate and independent from the restriction imposed in White v. Collis, et al.,
No. 20-cv-01117-JPG (S.D. Ill.).

2

filed a motion to dismiss 49 of these claims, prompting a full round of briefing by both parties and
dismissal of most claims as being time-barred. (Docs. 57 and 72). Six claims were transferred to
one or more other federal judicial districts for further litigation in the proper venue. (Doc. 72).
Defendant then filed for summary judgment on the remaining claims in this case, prompting a
second complete round of briefing. (Doc 84).
During this second round of briefing, White’s finances came into the spotlight again when
Defendant filed a motion seeking revocation of White’s IFP status and dismissal of the action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 92). Section 1915(e)(2) compels dismissal of a case filed by
an IFP litigant at “any time” the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue
“[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid.” 2 Id. Far from
being poverty-stricken, White revealed in numerous other court filings that he was the beneficiary
of financial assistance from multiple sources—including his friend, mother, and 150-200 others.
Defendant pointed to documents White filed in other cases establishing the availability of
significant funds. For example, in a sworn declaration filed as part of a 600-page motion for
compassionate release in the Western District of Virginia on October 5, 2020, White stated that
benefactors have paid thousands of dollars to assist him with litigation since 2015:
My friend Paul Angel collects money for my legal defense which he transfers to
my mother to repay the money she’s advanced me over the past twelve years to pay
them. In 2019, my friends, family, and supporters, contributed about $30,000 to
pay my legal and personal expenses. This year, I anticipate over $20,000 will be
contributed towards the same. Over the past 5 years, I would estimate that 150-200
persons not related to me have made donations towards my legal costs.
See United States v. White, No. 08-cr-00054-EDK (W.D. Va.) (Doc. 411 at 8, ¶ 27; 116 at ¶ 310
(Att. 1)). White also disclosed $14,000 used to pay a psychologist for an expert report on his
mental condition and $6,000-10,000 used to pay for an expert’s testimony in White v. USA, No.
2

White paid his $350.00 reduced filing fee in total on October 10, 2017.

3

20-cv-00291-MWB-EBC (M.D. Pa.) (Doc. 106 at 1) (Att. 3).

In addition, White filed an

advertisement soliciting contributions to his legal defense fund in White v. FBI, No. 17-cv-00948JPG (Doc. 25-6 at 30) (S.D. Ill.) (Att. 2), before disclosing donations from 150-200 individuals in
the Sworn Declaration quoted above. White’s admissions are numerous, and these examples are
by no means exhaustive.
White disclosed none of this information in his IFP application at Docs. 2, 3, and 9, and he
failed notify the Court of any changes in his finances during the pending litigation. Defendant
argued that these documents, consisting of sworn statements in the public record, established that
White was receiving substantial undisclosed income and gifts dating back to at least 2015. They
rendered his IFP application false when filed in 2017 and, together with his subsequent failure to
update his IFP application, provided grounds for sanctions. (Doc. 92).
The Court agreed. On the basis of his own admissions, the Court determined that White’s
allegation of poverty was untrue, and his material omissions from his IFP application warranted
sanctions. On December 23, 2020, the Court revoked White’s IFP status for misrepresenting his
indigence in his IFP application in 2017 and for failing to disclose changes in his finances
thereafter—all while benefitting from the assistance of court-recruited pro bono counsel for more
than three years. (Doc. 102). White was sanctioned with dismissal of this action with prejudice.
(Id. at 9). He was required to pay the remaining $50.00 owed for the filing and docketing fee in
this case. He was further ordered to show cause why he should not be subject to additional
sanctions, such as an order requiring him to pay for his attorney’s fees. (Id.). At the same time,
Attorney Osman was invited to file a statement setting forth the fees and costs White incurred in
connection with this case. (Id.).

4

White’s Response
Although White paid the $50.00 fee and filed a response (Doc. 105) to the show cause
order in January 2021, the Court struck the first response as improper. (Doc. 112). The initial
response was one of many documents White filed in this District that contained insulting,
harassing, and abusive language directed at the court, parties, counsel, and government agencies
(more on that below). He was given an opportunity to file a second response to the show cause
order by April 23, 2021. (Id.).
White’s second response, received and filed May 3, 2021, is considered timely. 3
(Doc. 113). In it, White insists that he engaged in no sanctionable conduct in connection with his
IFP application. White claims his trust fund account statements, alone, were sufficient to establish
his indigence and support his request for IFP status. If anyone is to blame for an error or omission,
however, it was not him. White specifically blames his friend, his attorney, and the Court. (Id.).
The Court will briefly summarize and respond to his arguments below.
First, White states that he disclosed his receipt of $500.00 per month from his mother in
his initial application for waiver of fees. (Doc. 113, ¶ 2). This is simply not true. The Court
reviewed White’s original application, entitled “Motion for Joinder and Waiver of Filing Fees”
(see Docs. 2 and 3) filed June 30, 2017, and it mentions no income whatsoever from White’s
mother or any other source. The Court also reviewed the second IFP application, a Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed August 14, 2017, and it also contains no disclosure of
wages, income, gifts, accounts, assets, or otherwise. (Doc. 9). Each time he was prompted to

3

White certified that he placed the Response in the mail on April 20, 2021, three days prior to the courtimposed deadline. (Doc. 113, p. 4). It is considered timely under the “prison mailbox rule.” Taylor v.
Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 859 (7th Cir. 2015) (“[A] pro se prisoner’s legal documents are considered filed on
the date that they’re tendered to prison staff in accordance with reasonable prison policies, regardless of
whether they are ultimately mailed or uploaded.”).

5

disclose any financial information, White responded in one of three ways: “no,” “$0,” or “---.”
(Id.). A trust fund certification filed with the motion shows a then-current trust fund account
balance of $358.36. (Id. at pp. 3-4). It also lists $3,275.00 as the “national six-month deposits.”
(Id. at 5). However, White offers no explanation for these deposits. When a more complete trust
fund account statement was filed on August 28, 2017, it showed a then-current balance of $331.81
and periodic payments from Western Union in the amount of $300.00, again unaccompanied by
any explanation of the source of this money. (Doc. 17). Put simply, White did not disclose the
fact that his mother provided him with any stream of income, gifts, assets, or otherwise during the
relevant time period—let alone multiple steady and significant sources. As to this argument, the
Court finds White’s assertion that he disclosed his receipt of more than $500.00 per month from
his mother untrue and inadequate to satisfy the show cause order.
Second, White admits that he benefitted from his mother’s payment of litigation costs in
the years preceding his IFP applications but maintains that it was unnecessary to disclose these
payments. (Doc. 113, p. 3, ¶ 4). He discloses the following amounts she paid on his behalf:
$15,000 for attorney fees in 2013; $10,000 for attorney fees in December 2014 or January 2015;
approximately $7,500 for expert fees between September 2015 and mid-2016. He further states,
“[S]he may have paid parts of some court costs outside of the trust fund in the year prior to this
IFP filing, but I have no record of them and I doubt they were substantial relative to the funds
reported.” (Doc. 113, ¶ 4).
The IFP application does not permit White to limit his disclosure of income, gifts, wages,
or assets, etc. to items in his trust fund account or amounts he considers “substantial relative to the
funds reported” above. It also does not allow him to exclude any amounts, based on when costs
were incurred on his behalf or when payments were made; this appears to be a distinction White,

6

himself, makes in order to avoid the one-year reporting requirement in the application. White was
explicitly required, under penalty of perjury, to “state the amount” he received in the year
preceding his IFP applications from “[a]ny other sources,” including “gifts and inheritances”
among other things. (Doc. 9, p. 1). The application also draws no distinction between amounts
received “directly” and “indirectly.”
More specifically, White was required to disclose income from any of the following
sources in the “past 12 months:” (a) business, profession, or other self-employment; (b) rent
payments, interest, or dividends; (c) pension, annuity, or life insurance payments; (d) disability or
worker’s compensation payments; (e) gifts or inheritances; or (f) any other sources. (Doc. 9, p. 1).
He responded “no” to each inquiry. White was also required to “describe below or on separate
pages each source of money and state the amount you received and what you expect to receive
in the future.” 4 (Id.) (emphasis added). He left his section blank. The application next required
him to disclose the “[a]mount of money that [he] ha[s] in cash or in a checking or savings account.”
(Id. at 2). White disclosed “0.” (Id.). He was further instructed to disclose “[a]ny . . . other
financial instrument or thing of value that [he] own[s], including any item of value held in
someone else’s name (describe the property and its approximate value).” (Id.) (emphasis added).
He disclosed “--.” (Id. at 1-2). White’s disclosure of financial information in this case after IFP
was revoked is insufficient to satisfy the Court’s show cause order.
Third, White also admits to benefitting from funds that were raised by his friend, Paul
Angel, and the American Free Press from 2015-18 or later. (See Docs. 22, 23, and 30). He admits

4

In addition to those amount discussed herein, White disclosed other sources of income and assets in his
filings. For example, Defendant points out that White disclosed his status as the beneficiary of an
approximately $1 million trust from his mother that he anticipates inheriting upon her death and is “creditorproof.” (Doc. 92, p. 5) (citing United States v. White, No. 08-cv-00054-EKD (W.D. Va.) (Doc. 411, ¶
315)).

7

that advertisements posted in this publication soliciting donations for his legal costs were
inappropriate, but he blames his friend for the misconduct. White further asserts that these funds
were used to repay his mother for her litigation expenditures on his behalf from 2014-16.
However, the amount repaid was less than her total expenditures, and that is why he did not
disclose these sums. The IFP application did not offer the applicant the option of nondisclosure
for amounts he deemed insignificant or less than he owed. White should have disclosed this
fundraising activity at the time he filed for IFP in this case because it occurred during the year
preceding his application, and he should have disclosed it thereafter because fundraising
continued. White did not disclose it at all, and he also omitted this information from IFP
applications filed in other cases in this District and was granted leave to proceed IFP. 5 White’s
belated disclosure of this information in the Response (Doc. 113) is too little too late.
Fourth, White claims that he discussed this fundraising activity with his attorney, and they
decided together that it was not necessary to disclose the information. However, White completed
and filed the IFP applications in this case in June 2017 (Docs. 2 and 3) and August 2017 (Doc. 9).
At the time, White was not represented by counsel. In fact, the Court made its decision to recruit
counsel only after finding that he was indigent—on the basis of his representations in the IFP
applications. (See Docs. 12, 22, 23, and 30). Given the chronology of events, the Court rejects
White’s attempts to blame his friend, his pro bono counsel, and the Court for the omissions he
made in his IFP applications.

5

See White v. Dept. of Justice, No. 16-cv-00948-JPG (S.D. Ill. filed Aug. 25, 2016) (Doc. 2, IFP motion
filed Aug. 25, 2016, granted Oct. 11, 2016, and $350 paid in full Nov. 7, 2016); White v. United States, No.
16-cv-00968-JPG (S.D. Ill. filed Aug. 29, 2016) (Doc. 2, IFP motion filed Aug. 29, 2016, granted Sept. 19,
2016, and $350 paid in full Dec. 9, 2016); White v. Office of Fed’l Defender, No. 16-cv-00971-JPG (S.D.
Ill. filed Aug. 29, 2016) (Doc. 2, IFP motion filed Aug. 29, 2016, granted Sept. 20, 2016, and $350 paid
Nov. 9, 2016); White v. Inch, et al, No. 17-cv-01059-JPG-DGW (S.D. Ill. filed Oct. 2, 2017) (Doc. 2 IFP
motion filed Oct. 2, 2017, granted Nov. 27, 2017, and $350.00 paid Dec. 27, 2017).

8

Attorney Osman’s Response
For his part, Attorney Osman seeks no reimbursement of attorney’s fees for his three years
of work on White’s case(s). He only seeks reimbursement of PACER costs, not already covered
by the PACER Exemption, in the amount of $35.50. (See Order at Doc. 35). This request shall
be granted. Moreover, the Court shall sua sponte revisit its Order dismissing as moot White’s
Motion to Dismiss Counsel (Doc. 99) and GRANT the motion. Attorney Osman shall be
terminated as counsel of record for White in this case. The Court thanks Attorney Osman for his
time and efforts in representing the White in this matter. Attorney Osman shall be EXEMPT from
pro bono appointments made from the District’s Pro Bono Panel for the next five (5) years.
Sanctions
Additional sanctions are necessary to deter White from engaging in future abusive
litigation tactics in this District.
As previously explained, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. The federal statute
that authorizes a party to proceed as a poor person, without prepaying the full filing and docketing
fee for the action, also compels district courts to “dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). Any question
about the mandatory dismissal requirement is dispelled by the Seventh Circuit’s admonition that
once “the allegation of poverty [is proven] false, the suit ha[s] to be dismissed; the judge ha[s] no
choice.” Thomas v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A)); Lofton v. SP Plus Corp, 578 F. App’x 603, 604 (7th Cir. 2014)). In
such situations, the only question is whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice.
Thomas, 288 F.3d at 306. Although a judge should consider lesser sanctions before dismissing a
case with prejudice, the court’s authority to dismiss a case with prejudice “in an appropriate case

9

is beyond question.” Id. In fact, “[d]ismissal with prejudice may [be] the only feasible sanction
for this [IFP application] perjury designed to defraud the government.” Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d
541, 544 (7th Cir. 2011); Thomas, 288 F.3d at 306-07.
The Court has considered and ruled out lesser sanctions and finds that dismissal without
prejudice or monetary fines will do little to deter this litigant. As White revealed to court-recruited
counsel (but not the Court) in an initial communication, he has easy access to money:
P.S. I see that the costs of this matter have been important to you from your motion,
and, the agreement. Don’t let costs interfere with your representation. I can
often find someone to advance sums when needed.
(See White’s Letter to Counsel, dated November 7, 2017, Doc. 95, pp. 9-11) (emphasis added).
White made this statement less than two months after he was granted IFP status and just one month
after receiving court-recruited counsel to represent him pro bono in this case.
Free from the financial constraints associated with actual attorney’s fees, White devoted
his resources to perpetuating existing litigation and bringing new lawsuits. In this District alone,
he filed nineteen civil cases from 2016-20, including twelve new cases filed from 2018-20. This
includes five civil rights actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, three cases under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, three cases under the Freedom of Information Act, and eight habeas petitions pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
He also litigated cases in other federal judicial districts during the same time period,
earning at least three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for filing cases that were dismissed as
being frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., White v. Secor, Inc., et al.,
No. 10-cv-00428 (W.D. Va., dismissed Nov. 5, 2010); White v. Office of Fed’l Defender, No. 16cv-00971-JPG-DGW (S.D. Ill., dismissed July 27, 2017); White v. Lemma, et al., No. 19-cv01486-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., dismissed Aug. 27, 2019). White “struck out” in the process and

10

could not proceed IFP without showing that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Undeterred, White continued filing new lawsuits in this District and
others by paying the full filing fee for each case up front. 6 Given all of this, the Court finds that
monetary sanctions are very unlikely to deter White.
Harsher sanctions are warranted. White has increasingly filed abusive, harassing, and
frivolous documents in this case and others. This Court has wasted significant time addressing
these filings. Sanctions must also target and curb this misconduct.
In Case No. 16-cv-00948-JPG, White made inappropriate ad hominem attacks on the
Department of Justice’s counsel in Doc. 183. The Court warned him that “[i]n the future, in this
and any other case, the Court will summarily strike any . . . filings that contain such inappropriate
ad hominem attacks and may not allow him to amend the filing.” (See Doc. 192, pp. 1-2 at n. 1)
(“first warning”).
In Case No. 18-cv-01682-JPG, White insulted his counsel and the Court in a Motion to
Dismiss Counsel filed January 14, 2021. (Doc. 40). He blamed Attorney Osman for misleading
him. (Id. at ¶ 1). He described the Court’s Order (Doc. 102) revoking his IFP status as “a fraudulent
Order” resulting from the “Court’s longstanding habit of deliberately misapplying the law.” (Id.).
White added that “this Court is ill-disposed to the niceties of the law and evidence.” (Id. at ¶ 2).
Finding these statements “inappropriate, gratuitous, and abusive,” the Court again warned White
to “refrain from filing any more pleadings containing language that is abusive toward the court,

6

White v. Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, et al., No. 18-cv-00841-RJD (S.D. Ill. April 9, 2018) (denied
IFP April 16, 2018 and $400.00 fee paid April 26, 2018); White v. United States, No. 18-cv-01682-JPG
(S.D. Ill. Sept. 4, 2018) ($400 fee paid Sept. 17, 2018); White v. Dept. of Homeland Security, et al., No. 19cv-00210-DWD (S.D. Ill. filed Feb. 15, 2019) ($400 fee paid March 7, 2019); White v. True, No. 19-cv00418-JPG (S.D. Ill. filed April 15, 2019) ($400 paid May 2, 2019); White v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
No. 20-cv-00751-NJR (S.D. Ill. filed July 31, 2020) ($400 paid Aug. 14, 2020); White v. Collis, et al., No.
20-cv-01117-JPG (S.D. Ill. filed Oct. 22, 2020) ($400 paid Nov. 17, 2020).

11

other parties, or others” and warned him that “such filings will be STRICKEN and returned to him
without any further action by this Court.” Moreover, he may be subject to sanctions “that include,
but are not limited to, a monetary fine and/or a filing restriction for further abusive or frivolous
filings.” (Doc. 41) (“second warning”).
In Document 105 filed in this case on January 19, 2021, White responded to the show cause
order in a harassing and inappropriate manner. By way of example only, White described the
Court’s Order at Doc. 102 as a “nutty Order.” (Doc. 105, p. 1). He also stated, “[T]he Court’s
Order is based upon a really nutty misapplication of the law, as well as the fabrication of factual
statements.” (Id.). He then added:
The fact is, Judge Gilbert, that you are too willing to accuse other[s] based on no
evidence and too little willing to review the law and the evidence and apply them
in the even-handed way required of a federal judge. You do this in case after case
after case and you don’t just do it to me, and I’m tired of it.
(Id. at 2). The response was stricken, and White was given additional time to submit an appropriate
response.
In Document 108 filed in this case on February 9, 2021, White targeted counsel, the Court,
and the federal court system more broadly, as follows:
“. . . My intent in not providing corroborating information was to cause the United
States to believe that I could not provide such evidence. This, I expected, would
cause someone like Ms. Garrison to appear in front of a fool of a federal judge,
someone who would copy whatever she had to say as a ‘factual finding’ without
any proof, and, once such an order was entered finding that no such confession
occurred, I would produce corroborating evidence and again expose the federal
justice system for the stupid, corrupt, and, arrogant, joke that it is.”
(Doc. 108, ¶ 2). This language resulted in a third warning against White to “refrain from making
abusive, gratuitous, and/or threatening comments directed at anyone in his filings.” (Doc. 110, p.
4). He was clearly warned that any more documents containing such language would be stricken

12

and returned to him without any further action by the Court. (Id.). He would also face sanctions
that include, but are not limited to a monetary fine and/or a filing restriction. (Id.).
In Document 109 filed in this case on February 11, 2021, White stated: “Judge Gilbert
informed me in United States v. White SD Ill. Case No: 16-cv-683 that he feels that he was
‘intentionally misled’ by my IFP application. He is incorrect; the only thing that he has been
intentionally misled by is the Devil and his own imagination.” (Doc. 109). The document was
stricken by the Court. (Doc. 111). No action was taken on the motion. (Id.).
On March 12, 2021, White received a fourth warning and became the subject of a
temporary filing restriction in White v. United States, No. 20-cv-1117-JPG (S.D. Ill.) (Doc. 7),
after he filed documents containing sensitive information, including the home addresses, phone
numbers, and other personal identifying information of public servants. That case is the subject
of a separate and independent filing restriction.
Against this backdrop, the Court now finds that additional sanctions are necessary to curb
White’s abusive filings in this District. Monetary sanctions, repeated warnings, stricken pleadings,
and temporary filing restrictions have had little impact on him. See Alexander v. United States,
121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 1997) (finding that courts have inherent authority to protect themselves
from vexatious litigation and imposing a $500 fine and entering a filing ban pursuant to Support
Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995)); In re Mann, 229 F.3d 657, 659
(7th Cir. 2000) (warning pro se litigant that abusive and disparaging language could result in
sanctions); Tidwell v. Clendenin, et al., No. 16-cv-00384-SMY (S.D. Ill.) (Doc. 43) (imposing fine
and filing restriction to prevent further frivolous and harassing filings). White shall now be subject
to the two-year filing restriction set forth in the Disposition below.

13

Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Osman’s Motion Waiving Attorney Fees and Requesting
Reimbursement of Costs of $35.50 (Doc. 103) is GRANTED. White is ORDERED to remit
payment of the $35.50 directly to Attorney Osman on or before October 25, 2021.
IT IS ORDERED that the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Revoking In Forma
Pauperis Status (Doc. 102) is modified as follows: White’s Motion to Dismiss Counsel (Doc. 99)
is GRANTED. Attorney Blane Osman is RELIEVED from any and all further obligations to
represent White in this case. Attorney Osman shall be EXEMPT from pro bono appointments
made from the District’s Pro Bono Panel for the next five (5) years.
IT IS ORDERED that, in addition to revocation of White’s in forma pauperis status and
dismissal of this action with prejudice, White is subject to the below FILING RESTRICTION.
FILING RESTRICTION
William White is SANCTIONED with a filing restriction in this District that takes effect
immediately and continues for the next two years. During this time period, White is prohibited
from filing any new civil actions in this Court, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to RETURN
UNFILED all civil pleadings he submits for filing in a pending or new action. This filing
restriction does not extend to a Notice of Appeal from this Order (which shall result in imposition
of an additional $505.00 filing/docketing fee), to the filing of any Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, or to pleadings filed as a defendant in another criminal or civil case. See Mack, 45 F.3d
183; Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436 (7th Cir. 1997). However, any papers submitted to the
Court by White while this filing restriction is in place must be accompanied by a copy of this
Order. Moreover, all habeas corpus filings will be summarily dismissed thirty days after filing,
unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

In accordance with precedent, White may seek

14

modification or rescission of this Order by filing a motion in this Court no earlier than two years
from the date of entry of this Order. White is WARNED that any efforts to evade the filing
restriction shall result in the imposition of additional monetary and/or other sanctions.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; the Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE and
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 9/27/2021

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge

15