Stancik, Jr. v. Deutsche Bank et al

Filing 32

Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/1/18. The Court denies plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) and denies plaintiff's motion to grant a new trial. Further, plaintiff is enjoined from filing additional post judgment motions, affidavits, or other documents in this case. The Clerk is directed to return, unfiled, any further documents submitted for filing in this action by plaintiff. (Related Doc. 28 ) (D,MA)

if there is a clear error of law, an intervening change in the controlling law or newly discovered
evidence. This most recent Motion simply restates that the Common Pleas Court should not
have granted a judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Defendant and this Court should have
overturned that judgment and permitted him to litigate it anew. He has not demonstrated
entitlement to relief under Rule 59(e).
Up to this point, the Court has been tolerant of Plaintiff’s pro se filings; however, there
comes a point when it can no longer allow Plaintiff to continue to file frivolous Motions to
attempt to relitigate a matter that already was decided by the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas. The filing of frivolous lawsuits and Motions strains an already burdened
federal judiciary. “Every paper filed with the Clerk of ... Court, no matter how repetitious or
frivolous, requires some portion of the [Court’s] limited resources. A part of the Court’s
responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of
justice.”2
The Court’s ability to perform its duties is compromised when it is forced to devote
limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous filings.3 To this end, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has approved enjoining vexatious and harassing
litigants.4

After a careful review of Plaintiff’s conduct in this case, the Court has determined

that it is necessary to impose some restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to continue on in this

Beltowski v. Bradshaw, No. 1:08 CV 2651, 2009 WL 5205368, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2009) (“The motion for
reconsideration should not provide the parties with an opportunity for a second bite at the apple.”).
2
In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989).
3
In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991).
4
Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145 (6th Cir. 1987); Wrenn v. Vanderbilt Univ. Hosp., Nos. 94-5453, 945593, 1995 WL 111480 (6th Cir. Mar. 15, 1995)(authorizing a court to enjoin harassing litigation under its inherent
authority and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (citations omitted)).

2

manner. Plaintiff is enjoined from filing additional post judgment motions, affidavits, or other
documents in this case.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under Rule 59(e) and to
grant a new trial (Doc. No. 28) is denied. Further, Plaintiff is enjoined from filing additional
post judgment Motions, Affidavits, or other documents in this case. The Clerk is directed to
return, unfiled, any further documents submitted for filing in this action by Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2018

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3