Lewis v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation, LLC

Filing 10

ORDER terminating 8 Motion for Reconsideration re 8 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 7 Judgment,,. filed by Sidney T. Lewis, 9 MOTION to Reopen Case. filed by Sidney T. Lewis ; terminating 9 Letter Motion to Reopen Case. Eight years after this action was closed [see dkt. nos. 6-7], Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing this action as frivolous. Because the Court directed the Clerk of Court not to accept any further filings from Plai ntiff in this matter other than a notice of appeal, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to strike Plaintiff's motions [dkt. nos. 8-9] from the docket. If the Court were to consider the motion, it would be denied as without merit. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/19/2021) (ate)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SIDNEY T. Lewis,
Plaintiff,

No. 13-CV-8146 (LAP)

-against-

ORDER

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, LLC,
Defendant.
LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Sidney Lewis’s motion
[dkt. nos. 8-9], filed pro se, docketed on November 17, 2021.
Several courts have declared Sidney T. and Yvonne D. Lewis
to be vexatious litigants and have enjoined them from filing any
further actions.

See Lewis v. No. Am. Specialty Ins. Co. et

al., No. 2:09-CV-179 (S.D. Oh. June 5, 2008) (Dkt. 45) (order of
dismissal at 4) (imposing prefiling injunction that requires
certification from an attorney that the claims are
warranted); In re Residential Capital, LLC, No. 12-12020 (MG)
(S.D.N.Y. Bankr.) (Dkt. 5212) (order denying motion at 1)
(describing plaintiffs’ pleading as “the most bizarre pleading
filed in this or any other case that this Court has seen.”).
In this action, the Court warned Plaintiffs in its order of
dismissal that further frivolous litigation in this Court would
result in an order barring Plaintiff Sidney Lewis from filing
new actions in forma pauperis in this district without prior
1

permission. (Dkt. no. 6 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651).)

Moreover,

in light of Plaintiff’s litigation history, the Court directed
the Clerk of Court not to accept any further filings from
Plaintiff in this matter, with the exception of a notice of
appeal. (Id.)
Eight years after this action was closed [see dkt. nos. 67], Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of
the order dismissing this action as frivolous.

Because the

Court directed the Clerk of Court not to accept any further
filings from Plaintiff in this mater other than a notice of
appeal, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to strike
Plaintiff’s motions [dkt. nos. 8-9] from the docket.

If the

Court were to consider the motion, it would be denied as without
merit.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 19, 2021
New York, New York
__________________________________
LORETTA A. PRESKA
Senior United States District Judge

2