Conway, Joan A. v. Executive Committee

Seventh Circuit

Conway, Joan A. v. Executive Committee

180 F. App'x 587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 2006

Docket05-3237

StatusUnpublished

This text of 180 F. App'x 587 (Conway, Joan A. v. Executive Committee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conway, Joan A. v. Executive Committee, 180 F. App'x 587 (7th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Joan Conway appeals from an order of the Executive Committee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois enjoining her from filing new civil actions without prior approval. The Executive Committee acted in response to Conway’s many frivolous and often indecipherable lawsuits. As best we can tell, Conway contends that the filing restriction violates her constitutional right to access the courts.

The right of access to the courts is not a right to bring frivolous lawsuits. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County, 73 F.3d 669, 674 (7th Cir.1995); Coleman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 791 F.2d 68, 72 (7th Cir. 1986). We have repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges to filing restrictions imposed against litigants who bring frivolous suits; so long as a restriction does not “bar the courthouse door” entirely, it will not impermissibly infringe a litigant’s access to the courts. See In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903, 905-06 (7th Cir.2003); In re Davis, 878 F.2d 211, 212 (7th Cir.1989); Green v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, 699 F.2d 364, 369-70 (7th Cir.1983). Here, the effect of the Executive Committee’s order is to bar repetitive or frivolous litigation; Conway offers no reason to believe that the injunction will impede her ability to file nonfrivolous suits in the district court.

In her appeal of the Executive Committee’s decision, Conway has demonstrated that there is a continued need to curtail her filings by submitting an incoherent brief and filing numerous frivolous motions with this court. An appeal that is lacking in substance or that simply rehashes positions that the district court properly rejected is frivolous, and we may impose sanctions. Fed. R.App. P. 38; Greviskes v. Univs. Research Ass’n, Inc., 417 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir.2005); Berwick Grain Co., Inc. v. Illinois Dep’t of Agric., 217 F.3d 502, 505 (7th Cir.2000). Accordingly, we order Conway to show cause within 10 days why she should not be required to pay a $1,000 sanction. If she does not respond within that time, or if she refuses to pay any sanction we might assess, we will enter an order instructing the clerks of all the federal courts in this circuit to *588 return unfiled any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by or on behalf of Conway unless and until she pays in full the sanction that has been imposed against her. See Support Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Joan Conway appeals from an order of the Executive Committee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois enjoining her from filing new civil actions without prior approval. The Executive Committee acted in response to Conway’s many frivolous and often indecipherable lawsuits. As best we can tell, Conway contends that the filing restriction violates her constitutional right to access the courts.

The right of access to the courts is not a right to bring frivolous lawsuits. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County, 73 F.3d 669, 674 (7th Cir.1995); Coleman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 791 F.2d 68, 72 (7th Cir. 1986). We have repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges to filing restrictions imposed against litigants who bring frivolous suits; so long as a restriction does not “bar the courthouse door” entirely, it will not impermissibly infringe a litigant’s access to the courts. See In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903, 905-06 (7th Cir.2003); In re Davis, 878 F.2d 211, 212 (7th Cir.1989); Green v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, 699 F.2d 364, 369-70 (7th Cir.1983). Here, the effect of the Executive Committee’s order is to bar repetitive or frivolous litigation; Conway offers no reason to believe that the injunction will impede her ability to file nonfrivolous suits in the district court.

In her appeal of the Executive Committee’s decision, Conway has demonstrated that there is a continued need to curtail her filings by submitting an incoherent brief and filing numerous frivolous motions with this court. An appeal that is lacking in substance or that simply rehashes positions that the district court properly rejected is frivolous, and we may impose sanctions. Fed. R.App. P. 38; Greviskes v. Univs. Research Ass’n, Inc., 417 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir.2005); Berwick Grain Co., Inc. v. Illinois Dep’t of Agric., 217 F.3d 502, 505 (7th Cir.2000). Accordingly, we order Conway to show cause within 10 days why she should not be required to pay a $1,000 sanction. If she does not respond within that time, or if she refuses to pay any sanction we might assess, we will enter an order instructing the clerks of all the federal courts in this circuit to *588 return unfiled any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by or on behalf of Conway unless and until she pays in full the sanction that has been imposed against her. See Support Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. App'x 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conway-joan-a-v-executive-committee-ca7-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack