The opinion
§. DISTRICT COURT
nisTrict OF VERMONT
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT CLERK
Q Z 3 □□□□□
JEFFREY LAMOTHE, □□□□□
Plaintiff, )
)
) Case No. 5:22-cv-161
)
COLLEEN BROWN, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Lamothe has recently filed twelve (12) lawsuits against state and
federal courts, judges, and lawyers involved in his 2009 bankruptcy proceeding in the District of
Vermont. Because Mr. Lamothe has named former District of Vermont bankruptcy judge
Colleen Brown and present bankruptcy judge Heather Cooper as well as the bankruptcy court
and the U.S. Trustee as defendants, these cases have been referred to judges in the Northern
District of New York.' Judge Mordue graciously agreed to serve until his death; Judges
McAvoy and Hummel have taken the cases in his place.
' The original bankruptcy filing carried docket no. 09-10014.
In 2022, Mr. Lamothe started to file civil lawsuits concerning his bankruptcy. These include:
Lamothe v. Brown, 5:22-cv-161; Lamothe v. Bankruptcy Court, 5:22-cv-162; Lamothe y. Bankruptcy
Court U.S. Trustee, 5:22-cv-163; Lamothe v. Cooper, 5:22-cv-164; Lamothe v. Federal Court Clerk,
2:22-cv-220; Lamothe v. Federal Court Clerks, 2:23-cv-28;, Lamothe vy. Rutland Sheriff Department,
2:23-cv-29; Lamothe v. Rutland Sheriff Department, 2:23-cv-30; Lamothe v. Rutland Superior Court
Clerks, 2:23-cv-31; Lamothe vy. Rutland City Hall Social Security, 2:23-cy-32; Lamothe v. Federal Court
Clerks of Vermont, 2:23-cv-33; Lamothe v. Federal Court Clerks, 2:23-cv-40.
In addition, Mr. Lamothe has filed a lawsuit concerning a claim of wrongful eviction, Lamothe v.
Steinert, 2:23-cv-54, and a motor vehicle accident, Lamothe v. Gullas, 2:23-cv-55.
In August 2022, Mr. Lamothe filed four essentially identical actions. Lamothe v. Brown,
5:22-cv-161 (D. Vt. Aug. 31, 2022); Lamothe v. Bankruptcy Court, 5:22-cv-162 (D. Vt. Aug. 31,
2022); Lamothe v. Bankruptcy Court, 5:22-cv-163 (D. Vt. Aug. 31, 2022); Lamothe v. Cooper,
5:22-cv-164 (D. Vt. Aug. 31, 2022). In a May 8, 2023, Decision & Order, these actions were
dismissed in part following review of the substance of the complaints in accordance with 28
U.S.C, § 1915(e). Lamothe v. Brown, 5:22-cv-161 (Doc. 13) (D. Vt. May 8, 2023).
In December 2022, he filed another case. Lamothe v. Federal Court Clerk, 2:22-cv-220
(D. Vt. Dec. 7, 2022). Also on May 8, 2023, the Complaint in this action was dismissed without
prejudice and with leave to amend in light of Mr. Lamothe’s self-represented status. Id. (Doc. 8)
(D. Vt. May 8, 2023). In both decisions, Judge McAvoy noted that Mr. Lamothe “has filed a
number of cases in the District of Vermont that are . . . almost completely indecipherable,
unsupported by any cognizable legal theory, and aimed at parties not amenable to suit.”
Lamothe vy. Brown, 5:22-cv-161 (Doc. 13 at 7) (D. Vt. May 8, 2023); Lamothe v. Federal Court
Clerk, 2:22-cv-220 (Doc. 8 at 4) (D. Vt. May 8, 2023). Judge McAvoy warned Mr. Lamothe
that, in light of his filing of groundless lawsuits, future frivolous filings in the District of
Vermont may result in a filing injunction.
This year, Mr. Lamothe has filed nine more cases. Lamothe v. Federal Court Clerks,
2:23-cv-28 (D. Vt. Jan 27, 2023); Lamothe v. Rutland Sheriffs Department, 2:23-cv-29 (D. Vt.
Jan. 27, 2023); Lamothe v. Rutland Sheriffs Department, 2:23-cv-30 (D. Vt. Jan. 27, 2023);
Lamothe v. Rutland Superior Court Clerks, 2:23-cv-31 (D. Vt. Jan. 27, 2023); Lamothe vy.
Rutland City Hall Social Security, 2:23-cv-32 (D. Vt. Jan. 27, 2023); Lamothe y. Federal Court
Clerks of Vermont, 2:23-cv-33 (D. Vt. Jan. 27, 2023); Lamothe v. Federal Court Clerks, 2:23-cv-
40 (D. Vt. Feb. 17. 2023); Lamothe v. Steinert, 2:23-cv-54 (Mar. 9, 2023); Lamothe vy. Gallus,
2:23-cv-55 (D. Vt. Mar. 16, 2023). As with the lawsuits filed in 2022, there appears to be no
merit to any of the lawsuits concerning Mr. Lamothe’s bankruptcy. (The two most recent cases
relate not to the bankruptcy but to an auto accident (Gallus) and to a rental dispute. (Steinert).
District courts have the power and the obligation to protect the public and the efficient
administration of justice from individuals who have a history of litigation entailing vexation,
harassment and needless expense to [other parties] and an unnecessary burden on the courts and
their supporting personnel.” Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks omitted); Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 23 (2d Cir. 1986) (“A district
court not only may but should protect its ability to carry out its constitutional functions against
the threat of onerous, multiplicitous, and baseless litigation.”’) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Thus, the court may prohibit an individual from filing new actions in the venue when he or she
“abuse[s] the process of the [clourts to harass and annoy others with meritless, frivolous,
vexatious[,] or repetitive [filings.]” In re Hartford Textile Corp., 659 F.2d 299, 305 (2d Cir.
1981).
An order restricting Mr. Lamothe’s access to the federal court should be no broader than
necessary. For this reason, the court advises Mr. Lamothe that it is contemplating entering an
order that would restrict his ability to file additional lawsuits. The order would provide for an
early review of any filing by the chief judge of the District of Vermont. A filing that repeats the
claims, or contains similar allegations, against the court and its personnel (or related parties such
as the U.S. Trustee or the Rutland County Sheriff) would be rejected for filing and returned to
Mr. Lamothe.
The court, however, “may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant ... without
providing [that] litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Moates v. Barkley, 147
F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998). Before entering such an order, Mr. Lamothe should be permitted
to explain why an order limiting his ability to file lawsuits is not appropriate. For this reason, the
court will set a hearing at the federal courthouse in Rutland, Vermont to provide Mr. Lamothe
with an opportunity to explain his position concerning the filing of additional lawsuits in the
future and his access to the federal court. The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, June 7,
2023, at 3:00 p.m.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this 24" day of May, 2023."
Zina)
Geoffrey W. Crawford, Chief Judge
United States District Court