Gresham v. Norfolk Southern, et al

Filing 188

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff is PROHIBITED from filing any further motions or papers in these cases unless such motions or papers are certified as non-frivolous by an attorney. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court not to accept any further motions or papers filed by plaintiff in these actions unless they are so certified. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 4/12/2016. (cc: Plaintiff, pro se; attys) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BLUEFIELD
LATHRONEA P. GRESHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NOS. 1:92-01003
1:92-01004

TRANSPORATION COMMUNICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Orders entered on July 28, 2015, and November 6, 2015,
the court denied plaintiff's motion(s) to reopen the abovecaptioned cases which had been closed more than twenty years.
Gresham appealed the court's order entered in Civil Action No.
1:92-01003 and, on December 2, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed her appeal for failure
to prosecute.

Thereafter, on March 21, 2016, Gresham filed a

rather voluminous paper with the court which she entitled
"Plaintiffs' Amendments As of Course Along With Notarized Summary
And Final Notice of Fraud Upon the Court by Officers."

(Doc. No.

187 in Civil Action 1:92-01003).
As this court informed plaintiff in its earlier orders,
these cases have long been closed and there is no reason to
reopen them.

For this reason, plaintiff is PROHIBITED from

filing any further motions or papers in these cases unless such
motions or papers are certified as non-frivolous by an attorney.

The court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court not to accept any
further motions or papers filed by plaintiff in these actions
unless they are so certified.

THIS ORDER DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT SHOULD PLAINTIFF WISH TO OBTAIN REVIEW OF THIS
ORDER.

This Order does not place any limitation on plaintiff's

ability to pursue litigation in any other case in this court or
any other court, state or federal.

Nor does this Order prohibit

plaintiff from filing any new lawsuits that have a legitimate
basis and comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) after
payment of the appropriate filing fee.

See Overton v. United

States, No. 1:11-CV-00591, 2012 WL 2030313, *1 (S.D. Ohio June 6,
2012); see also Hollis-Arrington v. Fannie Mae, No. 04-5068, 2004
WL 2595891, *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 15, 2004) (holding that district
court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that plaintiff may
"file nothing further in relation to this case without leave of
Court, other than a notice of appeal. . . .").
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to plaintiff, pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2016.
ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
2