Barber v. Craig et al

Filing 27

ORDER Striking Petitioner's [7-10] and [12-26] MOTIONS as Premature and Enjoining Petitioner from Filing Further Motions Without Leave of Court. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEXTER BARBER,
Petitioner,

Case No. 16-cv-11835
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
JAMES CRAIG, et al.,
Respondents.
_______________________________/
ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS AS PREMATURE (ECF ##
7-10, 12-26) AND ENJOINING PETITIONER FROM FILING FURTHER
MOTIONS WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT
On May 23, 2016, Petitioner Dexter Barber (“Barber”) filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). (ECF #1.) The
Petition is, by and large, illegible. The portions that are legible do not state any
discernable basis for habeas relief. (See generally id.) On June 6, 2016, the Court
entered an Order directing Barber to cure the Petition’s deficiencies and “file with
the Clerk of the Court a legible copy of the Petition that complies with Local Rule
5.1(a)(2) by no later than July 15, 2016.” (See Order to Correct Deficiency, ECF
#6 at 1, Pg. ID 23.) To date, Barber has not cured the deficiencies with his
Petition.
Nonetheless, on June 17, 2016, Barber began filing a series of largely
illegible – and largely unintelligible – motions with the Court (the “Motions”).
1

(ECF ## 7-10, 12-26.) For example, Barber has filed a “Motion to Indict Ms.
Carolyn C. Chapman Marsh” (ECF #20) and a “Motion to Run Over Carolyn
Hogan” in which Barber has alleged that the “Courts allowed gays and gangs to
overthrow USCA” before the handwriting devolves into illegible scribbles (ECF
#24).

At this time, however, Barber’s Motions are premature and it is not

appropriate for the Court to rule on the Motions before Barber has corrected the
deficiencies with his Petition. Additionally, Barber, as a litigant proceeding in
forma pauperis, has abused his right to access the Court through his voluminous
and baseless filings in this action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Barber’s Motions (ECF ## 7-10, 11-26) are STRICKEN. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that Barber is ENJOINED from filing any further motions without
first obtaining leave of court; any further motions filed by Barber without Court
approval shall be stricken.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 22, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on June 22, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]
2