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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT