Bond v. Hughes et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 Motion to Reopen Case and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by William C. Bond; denying Plaintiffs request to vacate the courts Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment Order already filed; the Clerk is directed not to accept any further motions to vacate the courts opinion and order or to reopen this action. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 8/1/2017. (c/m 8/1/17 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
AT BALTIMORE

WILLIAM C. BOND,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.: 1:16-02723-DAF

JOHNNY L. HUGHES, et al.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For reasons expressed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order
and Judgment Order already filed, see Doc. Nos. 22—23, and in
the Order denying the re-opening of this case, see Doc. No. 25,
yet again the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and
to File an Amended Complaint.

See Doc. No. 26.

Therefore, the

court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request to vacate the court’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment Order already filed.
See id.
Plaintiff already has been “admoni[shed]” that “[he] should
take care not to lose credibility by filing vexatious and
frivolous complaints.”

Doc. No. 25.

This is because “every

paper filed with the Clerk of this [c]ourt, no matter how
repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the
institution’s limited resources.

A part of the [c]ourt’s

[stewardship] responsibility is to see that these resources are
allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.”

In

re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam); see also
Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 1
(1992) (per curiam) (applying this principle to “notorious
abuser[s]” of the judicial system).

This is the second time

that Petitioner has asked the court to re-open this case.
court has again refused to do so.

The

Petitioner’s repeatedly

unmeritorious supplications are squandering the Third Branch’s
limited resources; the aggregation principle informs the court
that were Petitioner’s conduct repeated on a nationwide scale,
the work of the Federal Judiciary might come to a grinding halt.
Additionally, Petitioner’s conduct is damaging his own
interests.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record and Plaintiff, pro se.
The Clerk is directed not to accept any further motions to
vacate the court’s opinion and order or to reopen this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2017.
Enter:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

2