Dawson v. Sheeran et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING ECF No. 20 MOTION to Vacate 18 Order Dismissing Case & 19 Clerk's Judgment; DENYING ECF No. 22 Motion for Contempt against Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., and Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura, Deputy Clerk of Court Christe n M. Werner, Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley and Deputy Clerk of Court JLK; DENYING ECF No. 23 Motion for Contempt against Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura and Judge Michael H. Watson; DENYING ECF No. 24 Offer of Compromise and Settlement and D ENYING ECF No. 25 MOTION for Criminal Contempt with Criminal offenses against US District Judge. District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, 100 F.4th 659, 669 (6th Cir. 2024). Mr. Dawsons post-judgment filings are collectively over 200 handwritten pages in length. Mr. Dawson is DIRECTED TO CEASE filing documents with the Court, which has been closed since July 9, 2024. (ECF No. 19 .) Any future filings by Mr. Dawson here will be STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 3/11/2025. (cmw)(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
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM T. DAWSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No 2:23-cv-1627
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

PATRICK E. SHEERAN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on multiple, pro se, post-judgment motions and filings by
Plaintiff William T. Dawson, Jr. (ECF Nos. 20–25.) The Court rules on the motions and filings
below.
I.

Background
On April 22, 2024, the Court issued an Order vacating its August 7, 2023 Order and

Judgment. (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 16.) In the prior Order, the Court had mistakenly, upon adopting and
affirming the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation denying Mr. Dawson’s in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) status, dismissed without prejudice the case, rather than ordering Mr. Dawson
to pay the filing fee within 14 days. (ECF No. 16, PageID 276.) Mr. Dawson had concerns that
someone other than the Undersigned or the Undersigned’s Courtroom Deputy had issued August
2023 Order and Judgment. (Id.) The Court assured Mr. Dawson that the Undersigned did, in fact,
issue the August 2023 Order and Judgment and the error was not intentional. (Id.) And to remedy
the mistake, the Court vacated the August 2023 Order and Judgment, adopted and affirmed the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation denying Mr. Dawson IFP status, and ordered

Mr. Dawson to pay the full filing fee of $402 within 14 days of the date of the Order. (Id.) The
Court denied Mr. Dawson’s request for an evidentiary hearing, explaining his conclusory
allegations of intentional errors and bad faith by the Court were unsupported. (Id.)
On May 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued another Report and Recommendation,
noting that Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court’s April 2024 Order because he had
neither paid the filing fee nor requested an extension of time to do so. (ECF No. 17, PageID
279.) Mr. Dawson was given 14 days to object to the May 2024 Report and Recommendation,
but failed to do so. On July 9, 2024, this Court issued an Order adopting and affirming the May
2024 Report and Recommendation and dismissing without prejudice the action for lack of
prosecution and failure to comply with the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 18, PageID 283.) The Court
entered Judgment and terminated the case. (Id.; ECF No. 19.)
Since the Court’s Judgment, Mr. Dawson has made several filings. (ECF Nos. 20–25.)
II.

Motion to Vacate and Objections (ECF Nos. 20, 20-1, 21)
On August 19, 2024, more than a month after this case was closed, Mr. Dawson filed his

Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Case & Clerk’s Judgment. (ECF No. 20.) Mr. Dawson
attaches what he says were his objections to the May 2024 Report and Recommendation, that he
mailed on May 23, 2024, and claims the Court purposefully did not file these documents. (Id.
PageID 294; ECF No. 20-1.) Docket entry number 21, titled Mr. Dawson’s Objection to the May
2024 Report and Recommendation, is one of the objections attached to his Motion to Vacate.
(See ECF Nos. 20-1, 21.) Mr. Dawson believes that the Court and its staff are conspiring to
ensure the merits of his case are not reached. (Id. PageID 294). Mr. Dawson also recounts the
merits of his underlying claims. (Id. PageID 295.)
Yet in his Motion, Mr. Dawson admits that he did not pay the filing fee or present a

2

response to the Court’s July 2024 Order: “Because of, all of, the lies and the fact ‘that, he did not
have the $402.00, on his account, any more,’ Dawson did not pay the $402.00 or, even present a
response.” (ECF No. 20, PageID 293.)
Mr. Dawson moved to vacate more than 28 days after Judgment was entered, which
makes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) the appropriate mechanism to vacate the Judgment.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b) (“A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the
entry of judgment.”). Under that Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment
for any of these reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relies.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). None of the above applies here. Although the Court applied Rule 60(b)(1)
to correct its mistaken entry of Judgment in August 2023, no mistake occurred when the Court
entered its July 2024 Order and Judgment. (ECF Nos. 18, 19.) No fraud has occurred despite Mr.
Dawson urging otherwise, making Rule 60(b)(3) inapplicable. Nor do subsections (b)(2), (4), (5)
or (6) apply. Mr. Dawson’s Motion to Vacate is DENIED. (ECF No. 20.)
The Court considers Mr. Dawson’s Objections to the May 2024 Report and
Recommendation on the merits given Mr. Dawson’s representation that he sent them in timely,
even though the docket reflects they were not received. But his Objections repeat his arguments
3

above—that the Court’s Orders have been based on “lies,” conspiracy, and fraud. For the same
reasons as articulated above and in previous Court Orders, Mr. Dawson’s conspiratorial
speculations are meritless, and his Objections are OVERRULED. (ECF Nos. 20-1, 21.)
III.

Motions for Contempt (ECF Nos. 22, 23, 25)
Mr. Dawson files a series of motions for contempt: “Motion for Contempt against Judge

Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., and Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura, Deputy Clerk of Court
Christen M. Werner, Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley and Deputy Clerk of Court JLK” (ECF
No. 22), “Motion for Contempt against Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura and Judge Michael
H. Watson” (ECF No. 23), and “Motion for Criminal Contempt with Criminal against US
District Judges” (ECF No. 25).
In support of the above Motions, Mr. Dawson cites, 18 U.S.C. §§ 401(2), (3). This statute
allows district courts to hold parties in criminal contempt, not the inverse. See Int’l Union,
United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994) (“criminal contempt . . . is
punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court”). Mr. Dawson is a party, not an Article III court,
and has no authority to enforce § 401.
Mr. Dawson’s motions for contempt are all DENIED.
IV.

Offer of Compromise and Settlement (ECF No. 24)
In a filing titled “Offer of Compromise and Settlement” (ECF No. 24), Mr. Dawson

proposes a compromise to certain Judges in this Court, including the Undersigned, as well as
Court staff in this proceeding and another case that was before Judge Michael H. Watson—
Dawson v. Sargus et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-2175 (S.D. Ohio May 6, 2024). In exchange for the
release of certain prisoners including himself and a payment of $30,000 (ECF No. 24, PageID
426), Mr. Dawson offers to voluntarily dismiss all of the claims here and in the Dawson v.

4

Sargus case, and “will, never, raise them, again” (id. PageID 427).
Both this case and the Dawson v. Sargus case are closed. There are no claims to settle or
adjudicate. Mr. Dawson’s Offer of Compromise and Settlement is DENIED. (ECF No. 24.)
V.

Conclusion
The Court rules as follows:
Mr. Dawson’s Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Case & Clerk’s Judgment is

DENIED. (ECF No. 20.)
Mr. Dawson’s Objections are OVERRULED. (ECF Nos. 20-1, 21.)
Mr. Dawson’s Motion for Contempt against Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., and Magistrate
Judge Chelsey M. Vascura, Deputy Clerk of Court Christen M. Werner, Chief Judge Algenon L.
Marbley and Deputy Clerk of Court JLK (ECF No. 22), Motion for Contempt against Magistrate
Judge Chelsey M. Vascura and Judge Michael H. Watson (ECF No. 23), and Motion for
Criminal Contempt with Criminal against US District Judges (ECF No. 25) are DENIED.
Mr. Dawson’s Offer of Compromise and Settlement is DENIED. (ECF No. 24.)
District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. RJ Control Consultants, Inc.
v. Multiject, LLC, 100 F.4th 659, 669 (6th Cir. 2024). Mr. Dawson’s post-judgment filings are
collectively over 200 handwritten pages in length. Mr. Dawson is DIRECTED TO CEASE
filing documents with the Court, which has been closed since July 9, 2024. (ECF No. 19.) Any
future filings by Mr. Dawson here will be STRICKEN. This case remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3/11/2025
DATE

s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5