United States District Court, W.D. New York
June 13, 2005.
LAMONT ADAMS aka SANDERS LAMONT ADAMS, Petitioner,
CALVIN WEST, Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, ELIOT SPITZER, NYS, Attorney General of the State of New York, Respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM SKRETNY, District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
By Decision and Order dated April 5, 2005 (Docket No. 9),
incorporated by reference herein, this Court dismissed with
prejudice Adams' petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts. In addition, the Court ordered that Adams
show cause, by May 9, 2005, why the Court should not impose, for
the reasons set forth in the Court's Decision and Order, the
sanctions enumerated therein, specifically a fine in the amount
of two hundred fifty dollars ($250), with petitioner to be barred
from filing any pro se habeas corpus or civil rights actions
until such time as such fine is paid, subject to certain
exceptions noted. The Court's Order advised petitioner that his
failure to respond to the Court's order to show cause by May 9,
2005 would result in the imposition of such sanctions. Petitioner submitted no response to the Court's Order of April
5, 2005. Accordingly, this Court reaffirms the Order dated April
5, 2005, and imposes upon petitioner the sanctions described therein.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons discussed in the Court's Decision and Order of
April 5, 2005, the Court finds that the sanctions enumerated
therein, which are based upon the Court's inherent authority and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, are warranted and are hereby imposed upon the
petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner is hereby fined two hundred fifty
dollars ($250), and shall pay such amount to the Clerk of the Court.
Further, until petitioner pays this fine in full, petitioner
will be barred from filing any papers in connection with any
habeas corpus or civil rights actions that he has commenced on a
pro se basis or that he may wish to commence on a pro se
basis in the future, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to
return unfiled to petitioner any papers that he attempts to file
in any such civil action. The Court will except from this Order:
1. any papers that petitioner submits in connection
with any habeas corpus petition in which petitioner
seeks to attack a state court imposed criminal
2. any papers that petitioner submits in connection
with any new action that he seeks to commence
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and in which he
alleges, in clear and specific language, that he has
been, or is in imminent danger of being, subjected to
serious and irreparable physical harm, such
allegations to be supported by an accompanying affidavit which
sets forth with specificity the facts giving rise to
such claim of physical harm.
In addition, because the issues raised here are not the type of
issues that a court could resolve in a different manner, and
because these issues are not debatable among jurists of reason,
the Court concludes that petitioner has failed to make a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and accordingly the Court denies a
certificate of appealability.
The Court also hereby certifies, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this judgment would not be taken
in good faith and therefore denies leave to appeal as a poor
person. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917,
8 L. Ed.2d 21 (1962).
Petitioner must file any notice of appeal with the Clerk's
Office, United States District Court, Western District of New
York, within thirty (30) days of the date of judgment in this
action. Requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person must be
filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.