Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Gillenwater

United States District Court, D. Idaho

February 6, 2018

IN RE CHARLES LEE GILLENWATER

          ORDER DECLARING CHARLES LEE GILLENWATER A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT; SETTING UP MISCELLANEOUS FILE

          Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge.

         By previous Order, the Court directed Charles Lee Gillenwater to Show Cause as to why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant.[1] Mr. Gillenwater filed a timely response to the Show Cause Order.[2]

         Here, the Court finds it is appropriate to impose pre-filing restrictions. A review of Mr. Gillenwater's recent filings demonstrate that he is in the habit of filing harassing and duplicative lawsuits for which he does not have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing and his actions are placing an unnecessary burden on the court staff.

         1:17-cv-00433-SAB

         Gillenwater v. Candy W. Dale

In this case, Mr. Gillenwater sought monetary damages in the amount of $100 million. He accused Magistrate Judge Dale of committing criminal acts “when she abused her discretion, by failing to employ rule of reason analysis prior to issuing an order which could be reviewed for abuse of discretion.” ECF No. 2. He asserts that Magistrate Judge Dale demonstrated “a deliberate and willful determination to use Congressional statues to deprive fundamental constitutional rights or peripheral due processing rights, ” violating certain criminal statutes. Id. He asked that he be assigned “to act as the prosecution in all future criminal trials of [M]agistrate Judge Dale, related to these accusations.” At the same time, he filed the following motions: (1) Motion to Acknowledge the Complaint is a Petition to the Government for the Redress of Grievances, ECF No. 3; (2) Motion to Employ the Rule of Reason, ECF No. 4; (3) Motion for the Court to Inform the Plaintiff of its Consideration of Any Presumption of Constitutionality of Any Statute or Court Rule Which Mandate or Delegates Discretionary Power to Dismiss This Case under Any Circumstances, ECF No. 5; and (4) Motion for the Judge to Acknowledge the Attached Affidavit as a Written Statement Containing the Essential Facts of the Offenses Charged, ECF No. 7.

         This case was dismissed prior to being served.

         1:17-cv-00468-SAB

         Gillenwater v. Senior Judge Lodge

         In this case, Mr. Gillenwater sought monetary damages in the amount of $100 million. He accused Senior Judge Lodge of the same conduct that he accused Magistrate Dale, specifically, of violating the criminal statutes “when he abused his discretion and acted while a conflict of interest existed, failing to employ rule of reason analysis prior to issuing an order which can be reviewed for abuse of discretion.” ECF No. 2. He filed the same motions, see ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7; and he also filed a Motion Requesting an Evidentiary Hearing to Establish Subject-matter Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction and the Appropriateness of the Venue. ECF No. 6.

         The case was dismissed prior to being served.

         2:17-cv-00478-SAB

         Gillenwater v. Judge Bastian

         In this case, Mr. Gillenwater again sought monetary damages in the amount of $100 million. He also accused this Court of the same conduct as alleged in the two prior cases, as well as failing to employ “the Sherbet test, the Turner test, undue burden doctrine, or conduct an inquiry into allegations of substantial governmental ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.