Bond v. United States of America, No. 1:2016cv02723 - Document 29 (D. Md. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 Motion to Reopen Case and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by William C. Bond; denying Plaintiffs request to vacate the courts Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment Order already filed; the Clerk is directed not to accept any further motions to vacate the courts opinion and order or to reopen this action. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 8/1/2017. (c/m 8/1/17 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Bond v. United States of America Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND AT BALTIMORE WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.: 1:16-02723-DAF JOHNNY L. HUGHES, et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER For reasons expressed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment Order already filed, see Doc. Nos. 22—23, and in the Order denying the re-opening of this case, see Doc. No. 25, yet again the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and to File an Amended Complaint. See Doc. No. 26. Therefore, the court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request to vacate the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment Order already filed. See id. Plaintiff already has been “admoni[shed]” that “[he] should take care not to lose credibility by filing vexatious and frivolous complaints.” Doc. No. 25. This is because “every paper filed with the Clerk of this [c]ourt, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the [c]ourt’s Dockets.Justia.com [stewardship] responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam); see also Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 1 (1992) (per curiam) (applying this principle to “notorious abuser[s]” of the judicial system). This is the second time that Petitioner has asked the court to re-open this case. court has again refused to do so. The Petitioner’s repeatedly unmeritorious supplications are squandering the Third Branch’s limited resources; the aggregation principle informs the court that were Petitioner’s conduct repeated on a nationwide scale, the work of the Federal Judiciary might come to a grinding halt. Additionally, Petitioner’s conduct is damaging his own interests. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and Plaintiff, pro se. The Clerk is directed not to accept any further motions to vacate the court’s opinion and order or to reopen this action. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2017. Enter: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.