United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
DONNA CERIGNY, ET. AL.
JOSEPH THOMAS CAPPADORA, ET. AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
August 03, 2018, this Court ordered pro se Plaintiff
Charles Edward Lincoln III to show cause in writing why this
case and all other connected cases should not be dismissed
sua sponte in their entirety and to further show
cause why sanctions should not be imposed onto Plaintiff
Lincoln no later than Friday, August 17, 2018. See
Rec. Doc. 42. Plaintiff Lincoln sought extension of time to
file his response, and this Court granted that extension.
See Rec. Doc. Nos. 43, 44. Plaintiff Lincoln timely
filed his response on August 22, 2018. See Rec. Doc.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Lincoln, joined by two other
plaintiffs, filed a complaint against numerous defendants,
asserting, inter alia, breach and dissolution of
partnership, breach of contract, fraud in the inducement,
racketeering, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. See Rec. Doc. 1; see also Rec.
Doc. 15. Plaintiffs alleged minimum direct actual damages in
the amount $150, 000.00, with total damages exceeding $1,
500, 000.00. On November 14, 2017, the Clerk of this Court
issued a RICO Standing Order. See Rec. Doc. 4.
Plaintiffs responded with a partial RICO statement and
completed RICO statement. See Rec. Doc. Nos. 15, 17,
36. Subsequently, numerous motions were filed, including
motions for extension, motions to strike, emergency motions,
motions for leave to file, and motions to dismiss parties.
Since the filing of this lawsuit, at least three of the
originally named defendants have been dismissed from the
case. On June 5, 2018, Civil Action No. 18-869 was
consolidated with this case. See Rec. Doc. 25.
Plaintiff Lincoln has several other cases pending in this
Court, including Civil Action Nos. 17-12275 c/w 18-6308,
17-17423, and 18-4542.
numerous filings, Plaintiff Lincoln makes inappropriate
asserts regarding the First City Court Judge in New Orleans,
referring to the judges as “butchers who operate with
cleavers disguised as gavels.” See Rec. Doc.
35. He also presents nonsensical arguments, blatantly
disrespecting the legal profession, Louisiana state courts,
and Federal District Court. See e.g., Cerigny
et. al. v. Cappadora et. al., Civil Action No. 17-11111
(E.D. La. Oct. 24, 2017); Chiu et. al., v. Lincoln et.
al., Civil Action No. 17-12275 (E.D. La. Nov. 13, 2017);
Chiu et. al. v. Lincoln et. al., Civil Action No.
18-6308 (E.D. La. June 28, 2018); Lincoln v. Chenevert
et. al., Civil Action No. 18-869 (E.D. La. Jan. 29,
2018). Plaintiff Lincoln continues to file frivolous filings
with illogical arguments in this Court. He has been
sanctioned for similar behavior in several other districts,
including the Western District of Texas. See Abbot v.
Simon, Civil Action No. 08-00010-WSS (W.D. Tex. Mar. 25,
August 3, 2018, this Court ordered Plaintiff Lincoln to show
cause in writing why this case and all other connected cases
should not be dismissed sua sponte in their entirety
and to further show cause why sanctions should not be imposed
onto Plaintiff Lincoln. See Rec. Doc. 42. On August
22, 2018, after being granted an extension, Plaintiff Lincoln
timely filed his response. See Rec. Doc. 45.
prays, inter alia, that this Court approve his
response and discharge its Order to Show Cause.
states that he has taken significant steps to cure the
bankruptcy problem mentioned in the Order to Show Cause.
See id. at 6. He claims that he too was alarmed at
the conversion of bankruptcy case and is now ready to present
the correct facts to the Court. See id. at 1. He
also claims that he filed a new Chapter 11 bankruptcy case on
August 21, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the District
New Jersey. See id. at 2. He contends that the cases
he has in this Court “relate even more directly to the
new bankruptcy than to the old.” Id. at 4.
Plaintiff thinks that it would be best for this Court to
allow him to transfer his cases to New Jersey because he now
has two cases (one bankruptcy and one civil) pending in that
court. See id. at 5.
also asks this Court to clearly identify how he has violated
Rule 11(b). See id. at 7. Specifically, he asks this
Court to “itemize each and every . . . paragraph in
[his] pleadings, in an amended version of its Order to Show
Cause.” Id. at 13. Plaintiff Lincoln states
that this Court should allow him to speak his mind and voice
his opinions against certain Louisiana State Court Judges.
See id. at 8. This Court's use of an order to
show cause to preclude litigation of his “potential
mass-constitutional tort or class action” cases is an
overbroad application of Rule 11 and therefore a violation of
the Constitution. See id. at 14.
refers to Civil Action No. 18-4542, describing the defendant
as a café that is acting as an agent for present and
former mayors of New Orleans. See id. He goes on to
say that he intends to support his Complaint with affidavits
from “people all over the world.” Id. at
15. He has numerous volunteers, but his main volunteer has
been incapacitated and unable to help. See id. He
requests for this Court to itemize the defects of his
Complaint. See id. at 15-16. He stands to be
corrected or sanctioned, but only for offenses that he has
committed. See id. at 16.
admits to being sanctioned by Judge Walter Smith in Texas in
2008 but contends that the said order was “entered in
secret.” See id. at 19. He was suffering from
depression and did not learn of the order or have the ability
to appeal the order. See id. He knew the order was
void due to lack of actual notice. See id. If this
Court enters a similar order regarding sanctions, Plaintiff
plans to “present [both orders] to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals.” See id.
Fifth Circuit, it is well established that courts have the
discretion to enjoin plaintiffs from filing frivolous claims.
See e.g. Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285, 287 (5th
Cir. 1981). There is no one, rich or poor, that is entitled
to abuse to the judicial process. See Hardwick v.
Brinson, 523 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1975); see also
Green v. Camper, 477 F.Supp. 758, 770 (W.D. Mo. 1979)
(“Accordingly, in light of plaintiff's history in
this, and other courts, of initiating frivolous and malicious
litigation . . . and his demonstrated abuse of the judicial
process . . . this action should . . . [be] dismissed . .
.."). “Flagrant abuse of the judicial ...