ILNews

Suspended lawyer warned against ‘frivolous’ pleadings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has warned a suspended attorney to stop filing frivolous motions in an unsuccessful suit alleging police misconduct against the city of Gary and other defendants.

Former attorney Robert M. Holland III of Gary represents himself in litigation in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana naming Gary defendants as well as various Lake County officials. Originally filed in 2010, the court has since granted summary judgment to all defendants, and the judgments have been affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Holland asked for the judgment to be set aside under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and also filed a request for ruling or status conference. Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry’s April 24 order, warned Holland he was on thin ice continuing to plead a case with a “long and convoluted history” that’s been decided against him.

“Plaintiff … again asks that summary judgment be granted in his favor. But there is no newly discovered evidence or change in the law governing these issues, and Plaintiff has not identified any error of apprehension by the Court. Plaintiff’s motions are hence both denied. Indeed, both motions are frivolous and wholly without merit,” Cherry wrote.

“Plaintiff, who is a former attorney, should know better. This Court’s time is precious and should not be wasted. The Court thus warns Plaintiff that any further frivolous filings may result in the Court holding him in contempt of court.”

Holland was suspended in 2009 for collecting unreasonable fees, misuse of client trust funds and accusing an opposing attorney of bribing a judge, among other violatons.

The case in the Northern District of Indiana is Robert Holland v. City of Gary, 2:10-CV-454.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT