Ware v. United States of America

Background

Ulysses T. Ware filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging two federal convictions: his 2007 conviction for securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud, and his 2007 conviction on three counts of criminal contempt. He sought, among other relief, an end to enforcement of the criminal judgments, vacatur of his convictions and sentences, a new trial, dismissal of the indictments, evidentiary hearings, and a $2.225 billion money judgment.

The petition was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York. In a December 2022 order, the court denied Ware’s requests for the judge’s recusal, divided the petition into two motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255—the statutory procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence—and gave Ware the opportunity to withdraw the motions or amend them. The court directed him to state all grounds for relief and show that the motions were timely.

Reasons for Denial

The court found that Ware did not withdraw his motions or properly amend them. It also found that his filings did not show that the motions were timely. Instead, the filings indicated that the motions were time-barred and that Ware was not in custody when he filed the original petition, as required for this type of challenge under § 2255. The court further determined that the filings contained implausible, frivolous, and vexatious allegations and did not correct the deficiencies identified in the prior order.

Filing Injunction

The court separately considered whether to restrict future filings. Applying the factors used to evaluate filing injunctions—including the litigant’s history, motive, representation, burden on the courts and other parties, and whether lesser sanctions would suffice—the court found that Ware had repeatedly filed baseless and repetitive materials, disregarded orders from multiple judges, and continued the conduct despite prior warnings and sanctions.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Ware’s habeas corpus motions and each of his pending requests. The court directed the clerk to terminate the listed motions and close both civil cases. It also enjoined Ware from filing, without permission from the court, any new action in the Southern District of New York against the United States or any current or former New York judge, official, or employee arising from his prior federal criminal convictions. Finally, the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that Ware had not made the required showing and that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.