Raymond v. Mnuchin

Filing 5

ORDER that Pltf's 4 Notice of "Refusal for Cause is hereby STRICKEN AS FRIVOLOUS. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 7/26/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-mc-00038-MR-DLH DOUGLAS RAYMOND,1 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) ) STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________ ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. On July 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Registration of Foreign Judgment.” [Doc. 1]. In this document, the Plaintiff made a demand for “lawful money in all transactions” and asked the Clerk to issue a summons and to commence garnishment proceedings against the Defendant. [Id. at 1-2]. The Plaintiff also appeared to challenge the legitimacy of the confirmation affidavits and oaths of office executed by Roger L. Gregory, Chief Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and 1 While the caption of the documents filed by the Plaintiff in this action identify the Plaintiff as “Douglas Raymond” [Doc. 1 at 1], it appears that the Plaintiff’s name is actually Douglas Raymond Stehling. Timothy M. Burgess, Chief United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. [Id. at 2; Doc. 1-2 at 1-3]. Finally, the Plaintiff attached a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) advising the Plaintiff that he has made frivolous arguments concerning his tax liability. [Doc. 1-2 at 4-7]. The words “Refusal for Cause” had been written across each page of this correspondence. [Id.]. On July 21, 2017, the Court entered an Order striking the Plaintiff’s filing as frivolous. [Doc. 3]. The Clerk was directed to terminate the action. [Id.]. On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed another document in this action entitled “Refusal for Cause.” [Doc. 4]. Attached to this filing is additional correspondence from the IRS to the Plaintiff regarding his frivolous tax arguments. For the reasons stated in the Court’s prior Order [Doc. 3], the Plaintiff’s new filing [Doc. 4] is frivolous and will be stricken from the record. This is the second frivolous pleading that the Plaintiff has filed in this Court. Litigants do not have an absolute and unconditional right of access to the courts in order to prosecute frivolous, successive, abusive or vexatious actions. See Demos v. Keating, 33 F. App’x 918, 920 (10th Cir. 2002); Tinker v. Hanks, 255 F.3d 444, 445 (7th Cir. 2002); In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943, 945 (4th Cir. 1997). District courts have inherent power to control the judicial 2 process and to redress conduct which abuses that process. Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001). The Plaintiff is hereby informed that future frivolous filings will result in the imposition of a pre-filing review system. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 818 (4th Cir. 2004); Vestal v. Clinton, 106 F.3d 553, 555 (4th Cir. 1997). If such a system is placed in effect, pleadings presented to the Court which are not made in good faith and which do not contain substance, will be summarily dismissed as frivolous. See Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir. 1997). Thereafter, if such writings persist, the prefiling system may be modified to include an injunction from filings. In re Martin–Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2d Cir. 1984). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s “Refusal for Cause” [Doc. 4] is hereby STRICKEN AS FRIVOLOUS. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: July 26, 2017 3

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?