Williams v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN TODD WILLIAMS, Petitioner, No. 20-cv-1554 (RJS) -v- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -v- No. 14-cr-784 (RJS) JOHN TODD WILLIAMS, ORDER Defendant.

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge: On January 28, 2025, the Court issued an order denying an assortment of motions filed in the above-captioned matters by petitioner John Todd Williams. (Doc. No. 48.) On February 3, 2025, Williams filed three new motions in case number 14-cr-784 requesting (1) a writ of coram nobis; (2) my recusal; and (3) that the Court take judicial notice of certain exhibits in connection with his recusal motion. (Doc. Nos. 319, 320, and 321.) Between March 19, 2025 and April 1, 2025, Williams filed three more motions in case number 20-cv-1554 seeking (1) vacatur of the Court’s prior judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4); (2) my recusal; and (3) vacatur of the Court’s prior judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2). (Doc. Nos. 49, 50, and 51.)

Because the issues presented in these motions are substantively identical to those previously litigated and decided by the Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Williams’s motions are DENIED. Moreover, because any appeal would “lack[] an arguable basis in law or fact,” Tavarez v. Reno, 54 F.3d 109, 110 (2d Cir. 1995), the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Accordingly, Williams may not proceed in forma pauperis in these matters. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

Plaintiff is cautioned that further duplicative or frivolous litigation in this Court may result in sanctions, including an order prohibiting him from proceeding further in this action or bringing new actions without leave of the Court. See Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 25 (2d Cir. 1986) (affirming district court injunction permanently enjoining litigant from proceeding further in an action where the litigant had “a history of vexatious litigation” and was “likely to continue to abuse the judicial process”); In re Sassower, 20 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 1994) (“With respect to civil litigation, courts have recognized that the normal opportunity to initiate lawsuits may be limited once a litigant has demonstrated a clear pattern of abusing the litigation process by filing vexatious and frivolous complaints.”).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at Doc. Nos. 319, 320, and 321 in case number 14-cr-784 and Doc. Nos. 49, 50, and 51 in case number 20-cv- 1554, and to mail a copy of this Order to Williams at his most recent address.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2025 New York, New York ___________________________________ RICHARD J. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE Sitting by Designation