Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Danihel v. Office of President

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

April 29, 2015

JOSEPH DANIHEL,
v.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al.

ORDER

MARK A. KEARNEY, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 29th day of April 2015, upon consideration of this Court's January 7, 2015 Dismissal Order (ECF Doc. No. 8), March 13, 2015 Order denying Plaintiffs five Motions challenging this Court's authority (ECF Doc. No. 34), April 20, 2015 Order to Show Cause as to why this Court should not enter a narrow pre-filing injunction (ECF Doc. No. 57), Plaintiffs response to the Rule to Show Cause (ECF Doc. No. 62), Plaintiffs eighteen (18) written requests for Court intervention following our March 13, 2015 Order (ECF Doc. Nos. 35, 37-38, 41-55); Plaintiffs Motions now before this Court styled as Motions for Contempt or other Orders by the Plaintiff (ECF Doc. Nos. 42, 43, 48, 49 and 53); the Congressional Defendants' renewed Motion for an Order to Show Cause (ECF Doc. No. 56); and, as detailed in the accompanying Memorandum, It is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs Motions for Contempt and other Relief (ECF Doc. Nos. 42, 43, 48, 49, 53) are DENIED as lacking merit and filed, by an alleged sovereign citizen, solely to harass and burden this Court's limited resources;

2. The Congressional Defendants' renewed Motion for an Order to Show Cause or for Relief from responding to Plaintiffs filings (ECF Doc. No. 56) is GRANTED in part as detailed herein;

3. We find: Plaintiff continually abuses the litigation process; he has been given notice in at least three (3) separate Court Orders that his claims lack merit and he must stop filing claims without merit; he was provided with the specific opportunity to address this Court's rule to show cause on a pre-filing injunction through this Court's April 20, 2015 Order; we have considered his response; and, a narrowly tailored injunction would address the specific circumstances of this case. Based on these findings, we ORDER:

a. The Clerk of Court shall not accept any of Plaintiffs further filings in this matter without prior approval of this Court;
b. Plaintiff is hereby enjoined from commencing any new civil matters against the named Defendants that relate, or could relate, to the subject matter of this action without leave of Court. In any such "new matter", Plaintiff shall be required to first certify that (1) the claims being presented have never before been raised or disposed of on the merits by a federal court; (2) he believes the facts contained in the Complaint to be true; and (3) there is no reason why the claims are foreclosed by controlling law. See Nickelson v. Bush, Civ. A. No. 00-6170, 2001 WL 752667, at *4 (E.D. Pa. July 3, 2001) (finding pre-filing injunction appropriate and imposing certification requirements); and,
c. Any further actions taken by the Plaintiff in violation of this Order, notwithstanding his claim as a "sovereign" citizen, may result, upon petition, in a Rule to Show Cause as to why he should not be held in civil contempt and face sanctions and other penalties caused by his disregard for this Court.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.