J. John Gordon v. U. S. Department of Justice

First Circuit

J. John Gordon v. U. S. Department of Justice

558 F.2d 618, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12832

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1977

Docket77-1248

StatusPublished

Cited by45 cases

This text of 558 F.2d 618 (J. John Gordon v. U. S. Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. John Gordon v. U. S. Department of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12832 (1st Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

J. John Gordon appeals from the district court’s order of January 14, 1977 instructing the clerk not to accept for filing the complaint submitted by appellant on January 3, 1977. We affirm.

After filing a series of complaints made up vituperative attacks upon all the federal district court judges in Massachusetts, all the circuit court judges in the First Circuit, all the judges of the United States Supreme Court, etc., for ruling against him, a visiting judge entered an order on August 18, 1976:

“perpetually enjoining and restraining . J. John Gordon, from continuing, instituting or prosecuting, without prior leave of court, this or any other legal proceeding in any court against any state or federal judge, officer or employee for actions taken in the course of their official duties as such judge, officer or employee.”

In reliance upon this order, the district court refused to allow appellant’s latest complaint, requesting, inter alia, the arrest of both the visiting and local district court judges for issuing orders against him and the placing of the district court and this court into a receivership.

His argument on appeal is that no American can be denied access to the courts. The law is well established that it is proper and necessary for an injunction to issue barring a party, such as appellant, from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. Rudnicki v. McCormack, 210 F.Supp. 905, 908-912 (D.Mass. and R.I., 1962), appeal dismissed sub nom. Rudnicki v. Cox, 372 U.S. 226, 83 S.Ct. 679, 9 L.Ed.2d 714 (1963). Accord, Clinton v. United States, 297 F.2d 899, 901-902 (9th Cir. 1961); Meredith v. John Deere Plow Company of Moline, Ill., 261 F.2d 121, 124 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 909, 79 S.Ct. 586, 3 L.Ed.2d 574 (1959). See also Adams v. American Bar Association, 400 F.Supp. 219, 227-228 (E.D.Pa.1975); Boruski v. Stewart, 381 F.Supp. 529, 535 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff’d sub nom. Boruski v. United States Government, 493 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1974), appeal dismissed, 419 U.S. 808, 95 S.Ct. 20, 42 L.Ed.2d 34 (1974).

*619 The order of the district court is hereby affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

J. John Gordon appeals from the district court’s order of January 14, 1977 instructing the clerk not to accept for filing the complaint submitted by appellant on January 3, 1977. We affirm.

After filing a series of complaints made up vituperative attacks upon all the federal district court judges in Massachusetts, all the circuit court judges in the First Circuit, all the judges of the United States Supreme Court, etc., for ruling against him, a visiting judge entered an order on August 18, 1976:

“perpetually enjoining and restraining . J. John Gordon, from continuing, instituting or prosecuting, without prior leave of court, this or any other legal proceeding in any court against any state or federal judge, officer or employee for actions taken in the course of their official duties as such judge, officer or employee.”

In reliance upon this order, the district court refused to allow appellant’s latest complaint, requesting, inter alia, the arrest of both the visiting and local district court judges for issuing orders against him and the placing of the district court and this court into a receivership.

His argument on appeal is that no American can be denied access to the courts. The law is well established that it is proper and necessary for an injunction to issue barring a party, such as appellant, from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. Rudnicki v. McCormack, 210 F.Supp. 905, 908-912 (D.Mass. and R.I., 1962), appeal dismissed sub nom. Rudnicki v. Cox, 372 U.S. 226, 83 S.Ct. 679, 9 L.Ed.2d 714 (1963). Accord, Clinton v. United States, 297 F.2d 899, 901-902 (9th Cir. 1961); Meredith v. John Deere Plow Company of Moline, Ill., 261 F.2d 121, 124 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 909, 79 S.Ct. 586, 3 L.Ed.2d 574 (1959). See also Adams v. American Bar Association, 400 F.Supp. 219, 227-228 (E.D.Pa.1975); Boruski v. Stewart, 381 F.Supp. 529, 535 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff’d sub nom. Boruski v. United States Government, 493 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1974), appeal dismissed, 419 U.S. 808, 95 S.Ct. 20, 42 L.Ed.2d 34 (1974).

*619 The order of the district court is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

558 F.2d 618, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-john-gordon-v-u-s-department-of-justice-ca1-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack