Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 21, 2025

Williams v. United States

Judge
Richard Sullivan
Docket
1:20-cv-01554
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCriminal
In one sentence

In Williams v. United States, Judge Sullivan denied six motions and ruled that Williams could not appeal without paying filing fees.

Who this affects

John Todd Williams and his related criminal and civil matters; the order also concerns any future appeal or duplicative filings by Williams in these matters.

What happened

In Williams v. United States, John Todd Williams filed six motions across related criminal and civil matters, including requests to undo earlier judgments and to remove the judge from the case.

The motions sought a court order correcting the criminal case, the judge’s recusal, recognition of certain exhibits, and relief under a rule allowing judgments to be set aside in limited circumstances. The court said these issues had already been litigated and decided.

Judge Sullivan denied all six motions, certified that any appeal would not be in good faith, and ruled that Williams could not appeal without proceeding without paying the filing fee. The court also warned that future duplicative or frivolous filings could lead to sanctions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-01554
Judge
Richard Sullivan
Date
Apr. 21, 2025

Background

The order concerns related civil and criminal matters involving John Todd Williams. On January 28, 2025, the court had denied several motions Williams previously filed. Williams then filed six additional motions.

In criminal case No. 14-cr-784, Williams moved for a writ of coram nobis, a court order seeking correction of a judgment after ordinary avenues of relief, requested Judge Sullivan’s recusal, and asked the court to take judicial notice of exhibits related to that recusal request. In civil case No. 20-cv-1554, Williams moved to vacate the court’s prior judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), moved for Judge Sullivan’s recusal, and moved to vacate the prior judgment under Rule 60(b)(2).

Ruling

The court stated that the issues raised by these motions were substantively identical to issues previously litigated and decided. It therefore denied Williams’s motions. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Doc. Nos. 319, 320, and 321 in the criminal case and Doc. Nos. 49, 50, and 51 in the civil case, and to mail Williams a copy of the order.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith because it would lack an arguable basis in law or fact. As a result, Williams may not proceed in these matters without paying the filing fee. The court cautioned that further duplicative or frivolous litigation could result in sanctions, including an order limiting Williams’s ability to continue in the action or bring new actions without the court’s permission. Judge Richard J. Sullivan, a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation, signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.