Cotner v. Trammell

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne : Finding as moot 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss. (case terminated) ; finding as moot 10 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ; finding as moot 11 Motion t o Strike Document(s) striking 9 MOTION to Dismiss Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Anita Trammell, 3 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Robert E. Cotner, 10 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Robert E. Cotner, 11 MOTION t o Strike Document(s) filed by Robert E. Cotner, 15 MOTION to deem confessed true all Habeas Claims filed by Robert E. Cotner, 14 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum filed by Robert E. Cotner, 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241 filed by Robert E. Cotner ; finding as moot 14 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum; finding as moot 15 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; finding as moot 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254) (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ROBERT COTNER,

)
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs.
)
)
WARDEN ANITA TRAMMELL,
)
)
Respondent. )

No. CIV-11-198-JHP-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER
This action comes before the Court on the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for
Petitioner’s Failure to Comply with filing restrictions (Doc. # 9). Respondent also asserts
Cotner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is
frivolous. In response, Petitioner has filed seven new pleadings, to-wit: 1) Motion to Strike
Respondent’s Answer (Doc. # 11); 2) Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. # 10); 3)
Response to the motion to dismiss entitled, “Motion to Over-Rule and Denie (sic)
Respondents Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply (Doc. # 12); 4) Brief in Support of
Response entitled, “Endex (sic) to Attached Exhabits (sic) and Descriptions (Doc. # 13); 5)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum, entitled “Motion for Ad-Testicandum”
(sic) (Doc. # 14); 6) Motion to Deem Confessed True ALL Habeas Claims (Doc. # 15); and
7) “Notice to Court of UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE” (Doc. # 16).
After carefully reviewing all of the pleadings filed herein, this Court finds Petitioner
has filed yet another frivolous lawsuit. Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated at Mack

Alford Correctional Center in Stringtown, Oklahoma, is challenging the execution of his
sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He also alleges numerous civil rights complaints
which he claims arise from the long-ended Battles class action1 and which he alleges have
effectively lengthened his state court sentences.
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9) requests dismissal for petitioner’s failure
to comply with the filing restrictions imposed on petitioner in Cotner v. Campbell, 618
F.Supp. 1091, 1098-1099 (E.D. Okla. 1985), affirmed in part and vacated in part sub nom.,
Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 903 (10th Cir. 1986). After finding that petitioner had
abused the legal process by filing vexatious litigation designed for malicious purpose, the
Court imposed a number of restrictions on future lawsuits filed by the petitioner within this
district, to-wit:
[1]. Plaintiff Cotner is barred from filing further actions in this
court until the $1,000.00 fine imposed above has been paid in
full.
[2]. Henceforth, plaintiff Cotner shall carry a stronger burden
of proving that he is economically unable to pay the initial filing
and service fee, or some portion thereof.
[3]. Henceforth, prior to allowing plaintiff Cotner to proceed in
forma pauperis, he must sufficiently demonstrate to the court
that his action is in good faith and not “without arguable merit”
or malicious.
[4]. All pleadings hereafter submitted by plaintiff Cotner for
filing shall be verified, as provided for in Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P.

1

The civil rights action referred to by Plaintiff is Williams v. Saffle, No. CIV-72-095JHP) (E.D. Okla. Jan. 30, 2001).
2

[5]. Plaintiff Cotner shall include in every complaint or petition
hereafter filed a list, by style, docket number, court, date filed,
description and disposition, of every action filed by him in this
and every other court of law or equity.
[6]. Plaintiff Cotner shall personally send a copy of the
complaint and every subsequent pleading to the defendants or
defense counsel, and plaintiff shall submit documentary
evidence of such service to the court in a supplementary
pleading.
[7]. Hereafter, in every action filed in this court, plaintiff Cotner
shall make specific reference to this order, and shall detail to the
court how he has complied with each and every requirement
imposed upon him by this order.
Id., at 1099 (citations omitted). On appeal, the Tenth Circuited vacated the $1,000.00 fine,
but left the remaining sanctions intact. Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d at 903.
Despite filing numerous pleadings since the Respondent filed her motion to dismiss,
Petitioner makes absolutely no attempt to comply with any of the filing restrictions imposed
by this court. Furthermore, based upon the documentation contained in Respondent’s
motion, it is clear that Petitioner’s challenge to his sentence is once again frivolous.
ACCORDINGLY, the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Petitioner’s Failure to
Comply with filing restrictions (Doc. # 9) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE in all respects. All other pending motions are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of July 2011.

3