Holden v. Atos Technical Solution et al

Filing 118

DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PENDING OBJECTIONS/MOTIONS (Docs. 115, 116, 117); AND ORDER TO CLERK TO REFUSE ANY FUTURE FILINGS BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 5/26/17. (sct)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

O’DELL XAVIER HOLDEN

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
vs.
ATOS IT SOLUTIONS
AND SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-914
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
PENDING OBJECTIONS/MOTIONS (Docs. 115, 116, 117); AND
ORDER TO CLERK TO REFUSE ANY FUTURE FILINGS
BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE
I.

INTRODUCTION

This civil case is before the Court regarding three filings made by Plaintiff on
May 18, 2017: (1) Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order denying
Plaintiff’s motion for all stricken documents from the docket (Doc. 115); (2) Plaintiff’s
motion “requesting a substantive written order that substantiates the decision of
Magistrate Bowman to dismiss Holden v. Atos for being frivolous and without merit”
(Doc. 116); and (3) Plaintiff’s motion to recuse (Doc. 117). For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 115) and his two pending motions (Docs. 116, 117) are all
DENIED; and the Clerk is ORDERED to refuse any future filing by Plaintiff in this
case.

1

II.
A.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying his motion for
all stricken documents
On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that he be given all of the

documents that had previously been stricken from the case. (Doc. 112). The motion was
once sentence long and consisted entirely of the following: “I O’Dell Holden am
requesting all stricken docs [sic] from the docket of 1:14-cv-00914 by Judge Bowman for
further case investigation.” (Id.). This motion was denied by the Magistrate Judge. In
the Order denying the motion, the Magistrate Judge explained that the Court had denied a
virtually identical motion filed May 24, 2016 (Doc. 104), and that Plaintiff’s most recent
motion contained no argument or authority to support his renewed request. (Doc. 113).
As the Magistrate Judge’s Order addresses non-dispositive matters, the Court will apply
the “clearly erroneous” and “contrary to law” standards of review set forth in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) when ruling on Plaintiff’s objections.
Plaintiff’s objections argue that this motion is not identical to the May 24, 2016
motion because several documents have been filed since then and the current motion is
therefore requesting documents that had not been previously requested. (Doc. 115, at 1).
This statement is correct, but does not address the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
Plaintiff has offered no new credible argument as to why the Court should grant him
access to documents that have been stricken from the record. Plaintiff’s objections
merely rehash the same baseless accusations of collusion between the Magistrate Judge
and Defendant Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc. (“Atos”) that have previously been
2

addressed by the Court. (See Part II.B, infra). The fact that new documents have been
requested does not, in itself, rectify the lack of substantive merit in the motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order denying his
motion for all stricken documents are denied.
B.

“Motion for substantive written order”/motion to recuse
The two most recently filed motions pending in this case are substantively similar,

being based around Plaintiff’s accusations impugning the character of both the Magistrate
Judge and this Court. The first is titled as a motion “requesting a substantive written
order that substantiates the decision of Magistrate Bowman to dismiss Holden v. Atos for
being frivolous and without merit.” (Doc. 116). The second is a motion requesting that
the magistrate judge recuse herself from the case (however, given that the motion
requests that “the superior to Magistrate Bowman and Judge Black rule on this motion,”
the motion is interpreted as a request for this judge to recuse as well).
Plaintiff alleges that the Magistrate Judge has acted unethically throughout the
adjudication of this action to protect Defendant Atos. Plaintiff’s motions contain several
alleged examples of lies told by Atos during the discovery process and unethical actions
taken by the Magistrate Judge to prevent Plaintiff from uncovering the truth behind those
lies.
This is not the first time Plaintiff has requested recusal in this case. On November
9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “motion for removal of Magistrate Judge Bowman from case
1:14-cv-914.” (Doc. 86). The Magistrate Judge issued an Order denying that motion om
April 12, 2016. (Doc. 101). Plaintiff objected to this Order on April 28, 2016, raising
3

substantively similar arguments to the arguments for recusal in Plaintiff’s two motions
currently pending before the Court. (Doc. 102). The Court denied Plaintiff’s objections,
finding that Plaintiff’s accusations of bias on the part of the Magistrate Judge were based
solely on a speculative allegation of “collusion” with absolutely no supporting evidence.
(Doc. 105). Plaintiff has provided no new evidence or argument to support his assertions
regarding bias on the part of any officer of the Court, and his duplicative motions are
therefore without merit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 116, 117) are denied.
III.

CONCLUSION

This case has been complete for some time. The Court dismissed the case by
adopting the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on June 13, 2016 (Doc.
105), and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal by denying
Plaintiff’s appeal. (Doc. 111). Nevertheless, Plaintiff has continued to file frivolous
motions raising duplicative arguments that have already been rejected by the Court.
Plaintiff’s actions harm the judicial system by requiring the Court to devote resources to
analyzing and adjudicating the same issues that have already been finalized.
When a litigant abuses the judicial system by repeatedly filing frivolous lawsuits
or motions, sanctions are appropriate. Federal courts have the inherent power to impose
appropriate sanctions, including restrictions on future access to the judicial system, to
deter future frivolous, harassing or duplicative lawsuits. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,
501 U.S. 32, 43–45 (1991); Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir.1987).
Accord First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501, 513 (6th
4

Cir.2002) (courts possess inherent authority to sanction bad-faith conduct without regard
to whether such conduct could be sanctioned under other applicable rules or statutes).
Plaintiff has exhausted his legitimate efforts to seek relief in this case; any other
filing at this point serves solely to harass the Court. Given Plaintiff’s penchant for filing
repetitive, meritless post-judgment documents in this case and in an effort to bring this
matter to a close, the Court invokes its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and
ORDERS that the Clerk of Court not accept for filing any further documents by plaintiff
in this action except for a Notice of Appeal from this Order. Accordingly, with the
exception of a Notice of Appeal directed to the instant Order, no further post-judgment
motions or documents will be entertained by the Court in this case, and the Clerk is
DIRECTED to return without filing any such motions or documents presented by
plaintiff. See Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145 (6th Cir. 1987); Polyak v. Boston, No. 926527, 1993 WL 312000, at **1 (6th Cir. Aug. 17, 1993); Thomas v.Hageman, Case No.
4:03-cv-1049 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 31, 2003) (Doc. 19). See also Castro v.United States, 775
F.2d 399, 408 (1st Cir. 1984); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir. 1984);
In re Green, 598 F.2d 1126, 1127 (8th Cir. 1979).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1) Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s motion
for all previously stricken documents (Doc. 115) are DENIED;
2) Plaintiff’s motion requesting a substantive written order that substantiates the
decision of Magistrate Judge Bowman to dismiss Holden v. Atos for being
frivolous and without merit (Doc. 116) is DENIED;
5

3) Plaintiff’s motion to recuse (Doc. 117) is DENIED;
4) The Clerk shall not accept any future filings by Plaintiff in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/26/17

_______________________
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

6