Rochester v. Honthaway et al
| Julian E Rochester |
| Vladmir Putin, Bill Gates, Jack Dorsey, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerburg, United States Government, Jack Bezos, Mafias, Warren BB Honthaway and Donald J Trump |
| 6:2020cv01195 |
| March 26, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| Kevin McDonald |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 28, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 ***DOCUMENT MAILED #8 Judgment, 7 Order Dismissing Case, placed in U.S. Mail from Greenville Clerks Office to Julian E Rochester 171519 Perry Correctional Institution ALU192 430 Oaklawn Road Pelzer, SC 29669 (kric, ) |
| Filing 8 JUDGMENT dismissing the action without prejudice. (kric, ) |
Filing 7
TEXT ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Mr. Rochester is a state prisoner whose long history of abusive and frivolous filing practices resulted in an Order of Pre-Filing Review. See Order of Pre-Filing Review, Doc. # 6, In Re: Julian Edward Rochester, Misc. No. 2:95-MC-131 (Jan. 29, 1996). On July 10, 2012, the Court further modified Mr. Rochester's Order of Pre-Filing Review to require that he pay the full statutory filing fee in any future non-habeas civil actions. To the extent Mr. Rochester has attempted to name the Undersigned as a party to this action, this Court has thoroughly addressed that issue in a previous order. See Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, Doc. # 21, at 48, Rochester v. Laubshire et al., Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00236 (July 10, 2012). As noted in that order, a judge may exercise discretion and refuse to recuse himself in proceedings where a litigant is abusing the judicial system, as is Mr. Rochester. This is especially true here, where Mr. Rochester has made no substantiated allegations against the judges of this Court, including the Undersigned. It appears that Mr. Rochester, who has named nearly every judge in this district as a party in his various cases, is doing nothing more than attempting to add judges as parties in order to push for judicial recusal and extend the life span of his cases. In a recent order filed in this case, the magistrate judge directed Mr. Rochester to pay the statutory filing fee within twenty-one (21) days. The magistrate judge also apprised Mr. Rochester that this Court would dismiss this case if he failed to pay the statutory filing fee within the time period specified in the order. Mr. Rochester has failed to pay the statutory filing fee within the twenty-one-day period. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above- captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice and any pending motions are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 4/28/2020. (kric, )
|
| Filing 6 ***DOCUMENT MAILED #5 Proper Form Order, placed in U.S. Mail from Greenville Clerks Office to Julian E Rochester 171519 Perry Correctional Institution ALU192 430 Oaklawn Road Pelzer, SC 29669 (kric, ) |
|
Filing 5
PROPER FORM ORDER Case to be brought into proper form by 4/22/20. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald on 4/1/20. (ctuc, )
|
| Filing 2 TRUE DIVISION FOR TRIAL: Greenville. (kric, ) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Mandamus, filed by Julian E Rochester. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(kric, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
