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)
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?