Baker v. Obama
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03125
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Baker v. Obama, Judge Swain ordered Eric T. Baker to explain why future filings should not be barred after he submitted documents despite an earlier warning.
Eric T. Baker, whose future filings in this action may be barred if he does not timely show good cause or if his explanation is insufficient; a notice of appeal would remain an exception.
What happened
In Baker v. Obama, the court had already dismissed Eric T. Baker’s action as frivolous and said the case was closed. It also denied his request for default judgment and his request to reopen the case.
Despite that warning, Baker filed an affidavit asking why default judgment had been denied and requesting that Judge Laura Taylor Swain step aside. He later filed a letter describing the submission as an amendment to his original case.
Judge Swain ordered Baker to file a declaration within 30 days explaining why the court should not bar future filings in this case, except a notice of appeal. The order did not impose that filing bar immediately; it said the court would impose it if Baker missed the deadline or failed to show good cause. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Baker v. Obama · No. 1:22-cv-03125
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
The court said it had previously dismissed Eric T. Baker’s action as frivolous. It had also denied Baker’s motion for default judgment as improper and treated his motion to reopen as requests to change the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and to obtain relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b). The court denied those requests and stated that the case was closed. It directed the clerk to accept only documents addressed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and warned Baker that additional frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring him to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the case.
Subsequent filings
After that warning, Baker filed an affidavit asking why his default-judgment request had been denied and asking the judge to recuse herself, meaning to step aside from the case. He then filed a letter describing the submission as an amendment to his original federal-question case. The opinion includes Baker’s statements about alleged stalking, threats, physical changes, unpleasant smells, bodily sensations, and an alleged violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act involving J.P. Morgan.
Order
Because Baker filed the submissions despite the warning, the court directed him to show cause—that is, to explain why a particular order should not be entered. Within 30 days, he had to submit a declaration stating good cause why the court should not bar him from filing any future submission in this action, except a notice of appeal. The court stated that if he did not submit the declaration on time, or if it did not show good cause, the court would bar future submissions in this action, with the same exception. Thus, this order directed Baker to respond before imposing the filing bar; it did not itself impose that bar. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.