United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green
MARCUS J. LAWRENCE PETITIONER
MATTHEW BEVIN et al. RESPONDENTS
J. Lawrence, pro se Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. Stivers, Judge United States District Court
Marcus J. Lawrence initiated the instant pro se
action by filing a handwritten document which he captioned as
a “Common-Law Writ for Habeas Corpus Relief” (DN
1). Lawrence failed to pay the filing fee or to file an
application to proceed without the prepayment of fees.
Attached to his petition were 36 documents, each of which he
captioned “U.S. Federal Warrant & Order to
Arrest.” The documents demanded the arrest of Governor
Matt Bevin, former Governor Steven Beshear, Attorney General
Andy Beshear, and numerous other government officials,
judges, and other personnel. In addition to these
attachments, Petitioner filed two identical copies of a
document which he captioned, “Notice to File this
United States Court Order Named ‘U.S. Federal Warrant
& Order to Arrest' Kentucky Governor Matthew G.
Bevin” (DNs 5 and 7).
to comply with order
prior Memorandum and Order (DN 8) entered November 15, 2016,
the Court ordered Lawrence, to the extent that he in fact
sought habeas relief, to pay the $5.00 filing fee or file an
application to proceed without prepayment of fees and
affidavit form and a certified copy of his prison trust
account statement within 30 days. The Court also ordered
Lawrence to file his § 2254 petition on the Court's
approved § 2254 petition form and to name the proper
Respondent within 30 days. The Court warned Lawrence that his
failure to comply with these requirements would result in
dismissal of this action.
than 30 days passed, and Lawrence failed to comply with the
Memorandum and Order. In fact, instead of complying, on
November 23, 2016, he re-filed his original handwritten
petition (DN 9) and filed a document captioned as a
“U.S.C.A. Article III Memorandum of Law to Invoke the
Jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Courts
Judiciary Power & Legal Authority to Proceed” which
named the undersigned as a “Conspiracy member &
Defendant” (DN 10).
November 28, 2016, Lawrence also filed the Court-approved
§ 2254 petition form, which the Clerk of Court mailed to
him, but provided no responsive information in the form and
instead largely cited the Fifth Amendment in response to all
of the question fields. He also wrote in the caption of the
form, “‘SORRY FOLKS' Thanks for the Papers,
But ‘I DO NOT ANSWER TO Greg N. Stivers Courts, &
‘I NEVER WILL!'” Greg N. Stiver's,
‘GO TO HELL'” (DN 11). Attached to the filing
is a post-it note, in which Lawrence wrote the following:
Dear Greg N. Stivers,
Tell your Racist Momma that the 20 Black guys who kidnapped,
tortured, raped, beat, nearly murdered, assaulted, sodomized
her and held her Hostage for 3 years arrest is not a matter
of her right to demand, order & Comand & tell the
racist Bi*** None of the 20 Black guys arrest is a matter of
the Laws they violated. Your Going to Jail & Im Justice
addition, on December 5, 2016, Lawrence filed a document he
captioned as “Court Order Demanding a Public Trial by
Jury Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States
Federal Constitution” (DN 12).
has willfully refused to comply with this Court's Order
despite the Court's warning that his failure to comply
within the allotted time would result in dismissal of his
case. Therefore, dismissal of this action is appropriate.
See, e.g., Erby v. Kula, 113 F. App'x
74, 75 (6th Cir. 2004) (“A district court has
discretion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) if a party has engaged
in contumacious conduct or has actual ‘notice that
dismissal is contemplated.'” (citing Harris v.
Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254, 1256 (6th Cir. 1988)). The
Court will dismiss the instant action by separate Order.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (governing involuntary
addition to addressing the above deficiencies with the habeas
petition, the Court's prior Memorandum and Order also
addressed Lawrence's attempts to have government
officials arrested in this Court. The Court pointed out that
it had ruled in two prior cases filed by Lawrence,
Lawrence v. Smith, No. 1:14CV-177-GNS (DN 20,
entered October 18, 2016), and Lawrence v.
McConnell, No. 1:15CV-10-GNS (DN 9, entered November 4,
2016), that Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 permits a district court to
impose sanctions on an attorney or unrepresented party who
has filed a pleading, motion, or other paper which the court
concludes was filed for any improper purpose and/or had no
basis in law or fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). The prior
Memorandum and Order in this action stated that Lawrence has
been informed by this Court repeatedly that he cannot
initiate federal criminal charges as a private citizen.
Therefore, the Court found that the filings attached to the
habeas petition in the instant action seeking the arrest of
various individuals were filed for an improper purpose and
had no basis in law or fact. Moreover, the Court held that
Lawrence's conclusory allegations against these
individuals were baseless and frivolous on their face and
again warned Lawrence that further baseless or frivolous
filings in this action or in any other action could result in
sanctions imposed against him.
has repeatedly attempted to sue or to have the judges of this
Court added as Defendants to his lawsuits, presumably in an
effort to have the judge recused from the action. See
Lawrence v. Thompson, No. 3:14CV-919-DJH; Lawrence
v. McConnell, No. 1:15CV-10-GNS; Lawrence v.
Brown, 1:15CV-11-GNS; Lawrence v. Russell, No.
1:15CV-12-GNS; and Lawrencev. United States
District Court, 3:16-cv-131-JHM. Despite this Court
specifically informing him that he is not permitted to do so
and despite this Court's prior ...