Green v. United States of America
Filing
27
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's 26 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED as repetitive, conclusory, harassing, and frivolous on its face. Given Green's continuous pattern of behavior, it would be futile to allow further efforts to amend, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 03/22/2019. (am)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARLON GREEN
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-7329
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SECTION “B”(1)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Petitioner Marlon Green’s Motion for
Reconsideration,
styled
as
a
“Contempt
for
Court-Failure
to
Prosecute”, Rec. Doc. 26.
We
have
conclusory
carefully
pleading
by
examined
Green
and
yet
find
another
again
it
rambling
and
replete
with
repetitive, frivolous, and harassing commentary. His conclusory
allegations are void of factual and legal support. He had the
opportunity to clarify but instead filed non-responsive, largely
incoherent
argument.
As
such,
it
further
documents
Green's
“pattern of malicious and frivolous filings” noted in our earlier
order. That same order also contained a warning about consequences
for repeat attempts to abuse the judicial process. Rec. Doc. 23.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED as repetitive, conclusory, harassing, and frivolous on its
face. Given Green’s continuous pattern of behavior, it would be
futile to allow further efforts to amend.
No one, rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the judicial
process. Hardwick v. Brinson, 523 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1975).
Flagrant abuse of the judicial process can enable one person to
preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to
consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.
v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 1981).
Clovis Green
We are also aware
that for similar reasons in another context, Petitioner’s right to
file certain complaints was suspended by order of the Chief Judge
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See
Rec. Doc. 26, p. 8.
Petitioner’s repetitive filings in the Eastern District of
Louisiana are also exhibited in the following 11 cases that showed
dismissals due to his failure to comply with court orders, failure
to
present
coherent
or
non-conclusory
claims,
failure
to
prosecute, or failure to present non-frivolous or non-repetitive
claims: 1
2:04-cv-01429-CJB Green v. VA, et al filed 05/19/04 closed
11/24/04
2:04-cv-02363-LMA
Green
v.
Wal-Mart
Employee's,
et
al
filed 08/17/04 closed 10/28/04
In another civil action Green was denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis
by another judicial officer of this court. See 2:12-cv-01037-SSV-ALC Green v.
United States of America filed 04/25/12 closed 05/09/12. Notably, a letter
from Green’s mother was filed in the latter action as Record Document 6-1.
She describes in that letter her son’s behavior, medical issues, and her
dissatisfaction with a particular medical doctor.
1
2:04-cv-02749-CJB
Green
v.
Veterans
Hosp
NO,
et
al
filed 10/06/04 closed 02/19/05
2:05-cv-01316-CJB-ALC Green v. Maurin et al filed 04/05/05
closed 04/25/05
2:12-cv-00432-ILRL
Green v. Stevenson et al filed
02/15/12
closed 02/14/13
2:16-cv-15137-JTM-JVM Green v. Yates et al filed 09/30/16
closed 12/14/16
2:17-cv-07329-ILRL-JVM
Green
v.
United
States
of
America
filed 07/28/17 closed 02/14/18 (This case)
2:17-cv-10038-JTM-KWR Green v. Hartford filed
10/03/17
closed 04/10/18
2:18-cv-08018-SSV-MBN
Green
v.
United
States
of
America
United
States
of
America
filed 08/22/18 closed 01/18/19
2:18-cv-09005-JTM-MBN
Green
v.
filed 09/27/18 closed 02/06/19
2:19-cv-00502-SM-MBN Green v. National Football League et al
filed 01/24/19 closed 01/28/19
Despite efforts to promote responsive non-frivolous filings,
it is apparent that the Court’s general supervisory power to
control its docket may require entry of an order to curtail future
abuse of the judicial process by Petitioner.
Such an order would,
among other provisions, direct the Clerk of Court to refuse the
filing
of
any
other
petition
or
complaint,
motion,
or
other
pleading that is accompanied by an application for leave to file
or proceed in forma pauperis, excepting pleadings that contain
allegations of constitutional deprivation by reason of physical
harm or threats to petitioner’s person. 2
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of March 2019
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In view of Petitioner’s complaints of health care within the Veterans
Administration, particularly his mother’s letter cited in the 2012 action,
Petitioner is reminded that tort claims against the United States for alleged
medical malpractice or care by the VA, a Federal agency of the United
States, are “forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the
appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or
unless action is begun within six months after the date of mailing,
certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the
agency to which it was presented.” Quoted language from 28 U. S. C. § 2401.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?