United States District Court, D. Delaware
In re THOMAS E. NOBLE, Movant.
CHIEF JUDGE LEONARD STARK, Respondent. THOMAS E. NOBLE, Petitioner,
Thomas A. Noble ("movant"), a pro se
litigant incarcerated at the Howard R. Young Correctional
Institution in Wilmington, Delaware, has engaged in filing
numerous lawsuits that contain frivolous legal arguments that
are vexatious and abuse the judicial process. On September 13,
2004, United States District Judge Kent A.
Jordan entered an order enjoining Movant from
filing any pro se civil rights complaints without
prior approval of the Court. See Noble v. Becker,
Civ. No. 03-906-KAJ, D.I. 12. In Noble v. Becker,
Civ. No. 03-906-KAJ, movant was given notice to show cause
why injunctive relief should not issue, see Gagliardi v.
McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1987); he responded
to the show cause order, but "did not show cause"
why the order should not be entered (see Civ. No. 03-906-KAJ,
D.I. 7 and D.I. 12 at 4). The barring order issued, and
Movant did not appeal. In 2016, Movant sought mandamus relief
to vacate the filing injunction and, when it was denied,
appealed to the Third Circuit. On October 6, 2016, the Third
Circuit held that Movant was not entitled to mandamus relief
vacating the district court's filing injunction, and he
was not entitled to writ of mandamus for review of the
district court's enforcement of the filing injunction.
In re Noble, 663 Fed.Appx. at 190.
requests leave to file a petition against Chief Judge Leonard
Stark. (D.I. 1). In the petition he moves to reopen and
transfer to a district court not in the jurisdiction of the
Third Circuit, Noble v. State of Delaware, Civ. No.
17-353-LPS (D. Del. 2017), a case dismissed on November 7,
2017. (See id. at D.I. 34, 35). A motion for
reconsideration filed in Civ. No. 17-353-LPS, has been
denied. (See id. at D.I. 42, 43). Movant filed a
similar petition in the Third Circuit on December 12, 2017,
docketed as a petition for writ of mandamus, In re
Noble, No. 17-3814 (3d Cir.). In this case and in No.
17-3814, Movant filed similar motions to proceed in forma
pauperis, for copy work, and for leave to file only copy
of his documents.
Movant contends leave to file is appropriate because
throughout the years this District Court and the Third
Circuit have colluded to serially effectively rob Movant of
all his rights, this District Court has not addressed issues
he has raised, and he disagrees with court rulings, Judge
Stark has "obstructed justice and filed falsified
documents in a ministerial non-judicial capacity" and
Movant needs to add him as a defendant, and Judge Stark and
other judges in this District Court and the Third Circuit
have serially colluded with State employees to effectively
abet the countless ongoing felony crimes against Movant.
is evident that Movant petitions for leave to file a new
proceeding (which is construed as alleging civil rights
violations) because he is unhappy with rulings from various
judges in this District, including the recent rulings made by
Judge Stark in Civ. No. 17-353-LPS, and apparently believes
he will receive a more favorable ruling if Civ. No.
17-353-LPS is heard in a different district court. Movant,
however, petitions to reopen and transfer a case that has
been dismissed and reconsideration has been denied. Should he
choose to file an appeal, Movant may seek relief from the
Third Circuit for appellate review. Finally, Movant has filed
duplicative pleadings and seeks the same or similar relief
from the Third Circuit in No. 17-3814, which is now
considering the matter. As Judge Jordan stated, "[w]hen
reviewing Noble's complaint history, a pattern becomes
clear. After the dismissal of his claims, rather than file an
appeal as required by the Federal Rules of Civil and
Appellate Procedure, Noble simply files new lawsuits and
demands further review." In re Noble, 663
Fed.App'x at 189. It is evident that Movant continues to
litigate in the same manner as described by Judge Jordan.
in accordance with Judge Jordan's September 13, 2004
order that enjoins Movant from filing new cases, Movant's
motion for leave to file a petition (D.I. 1) will be denied
and all other motions will be dismissed as moot (D.I. 2, 4,
5). See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43
(1991) (the court has inherent authority "to manage
[its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases."). A separate order
 The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has described Movant as a
serial litigator, filing over five dozen lawsuits in federal
district courts, including over 30 complaints in this
District Court. In re Noble, 663 Fed.Appx. 188, 189
(3d Cir. 2016).
In 2006, Judge Jordan was elevated to the United States Court
of Appeals for the ...