Easterling v. Crawford

Filing 44

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 43) be denied. Objections to R&R due by 12/14/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 11/25/2015. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WARREN EASTERLING,
Plaintiff,

:

Case No. 3:14-cv-226
District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vs:
JUDGE DALE CRAWFORD,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No.
43).
Judgment was entered in this case on March 2, 2015. In his Decision, District Judge Rice
wrote:
Plaintiff has filed repeated cases, many of them in an attempt to
enjoin/reverse a decision of the Defendant, acting in his judicial
capacity, as a visiting judge in the Court of Common Pleas of
Greene County, Ohio. These lawsuits have been dismissed on a
number of grounds, not the least of which are judicial immunity,
res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. The Magistrate
Judge has thoroughly explained why any one or more or all of
these legal doctrines bar the Plaintiff’s right to the relief sought.
This has not deterred Plaintiff from filing, repeatedly filing,
identical lawsuits, seeking the same relief, and meeting the same
end at the hands of this District's judicial officers.

(Decision and Entry ECF No. 33, PageID 168, emphasis sic.)

Undeterred by this strong

commentary on the frivolousness of his filings, Plaintiff filed his first Motion for Relief from
1

Judgment (ECF No. 35). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Motion be denied because
Easterling attempted to litigate there his complaint about being physically barred from the
courthouse and he had not shown any error in application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to his
case (Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 36).

Judge Rice adopted that Report over

Plaintiff’s objections (Decision and Entry, ECF No. 38). Easterling responded with this second
Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 39). The Magistrate Judge recommended that
Motion be denied on the same basis as the first Motion because it repeated the same arguments
(Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 40, PageID 210). Judge Rice adopted that Report on
November 19, 2015 (ECF No. 42). It has taken Plaintiff only five days to file his third Motion
for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 43).
Despite some window dressing of accusing judicial officers of this Court of criminal
conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and deprivation of rights, Easterling’s argument is essentially
the same: the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923),
and Dist. Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), are unconstitutional
because they purport to prevent the exercise of jurisdiction by a district court under 28 U.S.C. §
1331 to review the correctness of a state court decision.
If this Court is incorrect in its reading of the law, Easterling has a plain and simple
remedy: appeal to the Sixth Circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court if, in his opinion, the
Sixth Circuit also gets it wrong. The Court has recommended that course of action to Mr.
Easterling on numerous occasions, but he steadfastly refuses to take it. Instead, he keeps filing
repetitive motions before the same judges he accuses of conspiring to deny him his rights.
The instant Motion is without merit for the same reasons as the prior Rule 60(b) motions
and should be DENIED on that basis.

2

Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge recommends District Judge Rice issue an order to Mr.
Easterling under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for
continuing to file frivolous motions. Easterling’s repeated Rule 60(b) motions in this and other
cases appear to be his preferred way of forcing this Court and its clerical and security personnel
to waste time, energy, and attention on him. All persons within this country have a constitutional
right of access to the courts, but persons who abuse that right by filing libelous, frivolous, or
harassing matter should be sanctioned for doing so, both by fine and preventive relief.
November 25, 2015.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

3