IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

HUBERT WARREN §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. §

§ NO. 3-04-CV-0496-D

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division §

§

Respondent. §

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Hubert Warren, appearing pro se, has filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the

judgment entered in this habeas case. For the reasons stated herein, the motion should be stricken

from the record and petitioner should be sanctioned $100.00 for abuse of the judicial system.

I.

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated assault on a public servant and sentenced to 60 years

confinement. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and state collateral

review. Warren v. State, 98 S.W.3d 739 (Tex. App.--Waco 2003, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Warren, No.

52,260-04 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2003). Petitioner also filed two applications for federal habeas

relief. The first writ was denied on the merits. Warren v. Dretke, No. 3-04-CV-0496-D, 2004 WL

1836733 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2004), COA denied, No. 04-11151 (5th Cir. Apr. 19, 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S.Ct. 743 (2005). The second writ was dismissed as successive. Warren v. Dretke, No.

3-06-CV-0598-D, 2006 WL 1313088 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2006).

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00496-D Document 62 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 570
1

 In fact, on August 8, 2006, the Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's motion for authorization to file a successive

writ. In re Hubert Warren, Jr., No. 06-10634 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006).

Dissatisfied with these results, petitioner filed eight different Rule 60(b) motions to set aside

the judgment dismissing his habeas case. Four motions were denied by written order. See Orders,

4/26/06, 4/27/06, 5/12/06, 6/9/06. In its June 9, 2006 order, the court barred petitioner "from filing

any further 60(b) motions or otherwise challenging his state criminal conviction in federal court,

unless he obtains permission from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals to file a successive

application for habeas relief." See Order, 6/9/06 at 1. After this order was entered, petitioner filed

four more Rule 60(b) motions attacking his state conviction. All four motions were unfiled and

stricken from the record. See Orders, 9/15/06, 9/25/06, 10/2/06, 10/3/06. On October 10, 2006, the

court warned petitioner that:

monetary sanctions may be imposed if he files any further Rule 60(b)

motions or other pleadings challenging his state criminal conviction

without first obtaining authorization from a three-judge panel of the

court of appeals. In the event the court imposes monetary sanctions,

petitioner will be required to pay the sanction before he files any

further Rule 60(b) motions or pleadings of any kind in this case.

Order, 10/10/06 at 1. Notwithstanding this warning, petitioner filed yet another Rule 60(b) motion,

his ninth overall, on October 23, 2006. Petitioner has never obtained permission from a three-judge

panel of the court of appeals to file a successive application for habeas relief.1

 Accordingly, his Rule

60(b) motion for relief from judgment should be stricken from the record. 

II.

Federal courts have inherent authority "to protect the efficient and orderly administration of

justice and . . . to command respect for [its] orders, judgments, procedures, and authority." In re

Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993). Included in such power is the authority to levy sanctions

in response to abusive litigation practices. Id. Sanctions may be appropriate when a pro se litigant

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00496-D Document 62 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 571
has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. See FED.R.CIV. P. 11; Mendoza v. Lynaugh,

989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir. 1993). Litigants who abuse the judicial process are "not entitled to

sue and appeal without paying the normal filing fees--indeed, are not entitled to sue and appeal,

period." Brewer v. Cockrell, No. 3-03-CV-0768-P, 2003 WL 21448362 at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 5,

2003) (Kaplan, J.), rec. adopted, 2003 WL 21488150 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2003), quoting Free v.

United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989). Appropriate sanctions may include restrictions

on the ability to file future lawsuits without leave of court and monetary sanctions. See generally,

McCampbell v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 982 F.Supp. 445, 448-49 (N.D. Tex. 1997) (Kaplan, J.)

(discussing sanctions available to deter and punish pro se litigants for abusing the judicial system

by filing multiple frivolous lawsuits). 

Petitioner has filed nine different Rule 60(b) motions in the past six months. After the court

denied four of those motions, it barred petitioner from filing any further Rule 60(b) motions or

otherwise challenging his state criminal conviction in federal court without obtaining permission

from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals. See Order, 6/9/06 at 1. Petitioner ignored that

order by filing four additional Rule 60(b) motions. Just two weeks ago, the court warned petitioner

that 

monetary sanctions may be imposed if he persists in filing Rule 60(b) motions. See Order, 10/10/06.

Undeterred by that warning, petitioner has filed yet another Rule 60(b) motion challenging his

underlying state conviction. In order to deter such conduct in the future, petitioner should be

sanctioned $100.00 and barred from filing any further Rule 60(b) motions or pleadings of any kind

in this case until the sanction is paid.

RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment [Doc. #60] should be unfiled and

stricken from the record of this case. In addition, petitioner should be sanctioned $100.00 and barred

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00496-D Document 62 Filed 10/25/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 572
from filing any further Rule 60(b) motions or pleadings of any kind in this case until the sanction

is paid.

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner

provided by law. Any party may file written objections to the recommendation within 10 days after

being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The failure to file

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th

Cir. 1996).

DATED: October 25, 2006.

 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00496-D Document 62 Filed 10/25/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 573