United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Michael P. Shea United States District Judge
Court imposes a Leave-To-File Injunction as to Mr. McLaughlin
for the reasons that follow.
McLaughlin was convicted in this Court for knowingly and
willingly giving a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001(a)(3). The Court sentenced Mr. McLaughlin to
thirty months of incarceration and three years of supervised
McLaughlin has filed numerous patently meritless filings
arguing, inter alia, that his conviction should be
vacated because it was "acquired as a result of
common-law trespass" in that he was the "sole and
rightful owner" of his person. See, e.g., ECF
229, 233, 240, 253, 259. On February 19, 2019, the Court
issued an Order
explicitly warning Mr. McLaughlin that further frivolous
filings in this case may result in sanctions, including an
injunction requiring the plaintiff to obtain leave of the
Court before filing any additional documents on the docket.
See In re Martin Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d
Cir. 1984) (Federal courts have both the inherent power and
the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction
from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article
III functions.); see also Shafii v. British Airways,
PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1996) (stating that a
district court may impose sanctions against litigants who
abuse the judicial process).
McLaughlin was undeterred. On April 22, 2019, the Court
entered another Order stating that
Mr. McLaughlin filed seven other documents since the
Court's 260 order regarding frivolous filings.
See ECF Nos. 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, and 270.
These documents repeat the same arguments previously denied.
See, e.g., ECF No. 269 at 1 ("Raymond McLaughlin is not
a person; Raymond McLaughlin is a name... [t]he Fourth
Amendment holds that United States has all rights and
interest in the name Raymond McLaughlin and the people
possess all rights and interest in his person... Whereas,
Raymond McLaughlin is a name and not a person, Raymond
McLaughlin is not, was never attached to, and cannot be
presumed to be attached to my person... you are commanded to
immediately ensure that the people and his person are no
longer at the above noted location."); ECF No. 270 at 2
("It is unlawful and a violation of the Fourth Amendment
for United States to possess my person... The offense was
committed by the title Raymond McLaughlin which exists in the
public; and which was properly charged according to the
indictment. Consequently, United States, its agents,
employees and/or officers only have authority over the title
Court further stated:
"[t]he equity power of a court to give injunctive relief
against vexatious litigation is an ancient one which has been
codified in the All Writs Statute." Matter of
Hartford Textile Corp., 681 F.2d 895, 897 (2d Cir.
1982); see also In re Martin Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254,
1261 (2d Cir. 1984) (Federal courts have both the inherent
power and the constitutional obligation to protect their
jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to
carry out Article III functions.); Shafii v. British
Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1996) (stating
that a district court may impose sanctions against litigants
who abuse the judicial process).
Because Mr. McLaughlin has continued to file frivolous
documents after the Court's notice that such behavior
might result in sanctions, see ECF No. 260, Mr.
McLaughlin is hereby ordered to show cause as to why the
Court should not impose a leave-to-file injunction.
Specifically, Mr. McLaughlin shall have 30 days to file a
response explaining why the Court should not impose an
injunction requiring him to obtain leave of the Court before
filing any additional documents on the docket. If Mr.
McLaughlin does not respond or his response does not show why
sanctions are inappropriate, the Court will issue a
leave-to-file sanction. See Viola v. U.S., 481
Fed.Appx. 30, 31 (2d Cir. 2012) ("[T]he procedure for
imposing leave-to-file sanctions involves three stages: (1)
the court notifies the litigant that future frivolous filings
might result in sanctions; (2) if the litigant continues this
behavior, the court orders the litigant to show cause as to
why a leave-to-file sanction order should not issue; and (3)
if the litigant's response does not show why sanctions
are not appropriate, the court issues a sanctions
order.") (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The Court notes that such an injunction will not
prevent the defendant from prosecuting his appeal, which is
pending at the Court of Appeals, inasmuch as he has no need
to file documents in this Court in order to do so.
Mr. McLaughlin thereafter moved to dismiss the criminal case
on the grounds that the court lacked personal and subject
matter jurisdiction. (ECF 279.) The Court denied the motion,