Williams v. United States of America
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11547
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Williams v. United States, Judge McMahon barred Williams from future civil actions without prior permission to proceed without fees.
Steven Talbert Williams is barred from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee in the Southern District of New York unless he first obtains permission from the court. The order also affects any future action he attempts to file without following that procedure.
What happened
In Williams v. United States of America (Department of Treasury), Steven Talbert Williams filed the case without a lawyer. The court had previously dismissed the action as frivolous and noted his history of frivolous and vexatious litigation.
The court ordered Williams to explain why he should not be barred from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee unless he first received permission. Williams submitted an affirmation and additional materials, but the court found his arguments insufficient.
Judge McMahon barred Williams from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee in this court unless he first obtains permission. He must submit his proposed complaint and a copy of the bar order with any request for permission; the court also denied fee-free status for an appeal and warned that further frivolous filings could lead to additional sanctions.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States of America · No. 1:19-cv-11547
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 21, 2020
Background
Steven Talbert Williams filed this action without a lawyer. The court previously observed that he had filed a 677-page complaint and continued delivering several hundred pages of additional documents to the court each day. The court directed him to limit future filings to ten pages unless he obtained permission to exceed that limit.
On January 24, 2020, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, meaning that it lacked a serious legal or factual basis. The court also noted Williams's history of frivolous and vexatious litigation and ordered him to explain why he should not be barred from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee unless he first received permission. Williams submitted an affirmation, along with appendices that appeared to seek participation by the New York and United States Attorneys General in a proposed preliminary discovery conference.
Before the court reviewed the affirmation, Williams filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals later dismissed that appeal as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact.
Court's Reasoning
The court concluded that Williams's affirmation did not differ meaningfully from his earlier filings. The opinion quotes statements in which Williams described alleged threats to his life, claimed that the federal courts had become an enemy, and warned that he had to fight back. The court found his arguments against the proposed filing restriction insufficient.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court barred Williams from filing future civil actions without paying the filing fee in the Southern District of New York unless he first obtained leave from the court. Any request for leave must include a copy of the proposed complaint and a copy of the bar order, and it must be filed with the court's Pro Se Intake Unit. If Williams files an action without first seeking leave, the court stated that it will dismiss the action for failure to comply with the order.
The court also warned that continued submission of frivolous documents could result in additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Judge Colleen McMahon certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.