Winding v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMES C. WINDING CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NO. 25-00637-BAJ-RLB
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5, the
"Report") recommending that the Court dismiss the above-captioned matter with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. (Doc. 5 at 7).
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal for two reasons. First, Plaintiff
has a long history ofrepetitious filings challenging his criminal convictions. (Id. at 3).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has warned Plaintiff several
times to cease filing these repetitious claims and has imposed sanctions on Plaintiff.
(Id.). Plaintiff has failed to pay the sanctions imposed by the Circuit, and as such, the
Magistrate Judge emphasized that Plaintiff is barred from filing the instant suit.
(Id. at 4). Second, even if Plaintiff was not barred from filing the instant suit, the
IVIagistrate Judge found that his claims have no merit. (Id.).
Plaintiff objects to the Report, raising issues pertaining to the propriety of his
underlying criminal convictions. (Doc. 6; Doc 7). Plaintiff also asks this Court to
disregard the Fifth Circuit's sanctions "in the interest of justice as [Plaintiff] has
Case 3:25-cv-00637-BAJ-RLB Document 8 01/30/26 Page 1 of 3

provided this Honorable Court with clearly undisputed evidence that his conviction
and sentence are based upon a (void ab initio) Indictment and charge[.]" (Doc. 6 at 5).
The Fifth Circuit's April 18, 2025 Order to Plaintiff emphasizes the following:
Winding has disregarded this court's previous warnings and has
remained undeterred by the monetary sanctions of $100, $200, and $500
previously imposed by this court for his continued filing of frivolous,
repetitive, or otherwise abusive motions challenging his convictions and
sentences. Accordingly, Winding is ORDERED to pay an additional
sanction of $1,000 to the clerk of this court, and he is specifically
BARRED from filing, in this court or in any court subject to this
court's jurisdiction, any pleading based, in whole or in part, on
his kidnapping and sexual battery convictions and sentences
until the sanction is satisfied. In the event that Winding satisfies
the $1,000 sanction, he shall remain BARRED from, filing, in this
court or in any court subject to this court's jurisdiction, any
pleading based, in whole or in part, on his kidnapping and
sexual battery convictions and sentences, unless he first obtains
leave of the court in which he seeks to file such challenge.
Moreover, Winding is again WARNED that he should review any
pending complaints, motions, and appeals and withdraw any that are
frivolous or repetitive, and that failure to withdraw any frivolous or
repetitive proceedings could result in the imposition of additional
monetary sanctions. Finally, Winding is WARNED that filing any
frivolous or repetitive pleading or challenge to his kidnapping and
sexual battery convictions and sentences, in this court or any court
subject to this court's jurisdiction, will subject him to additional and
progressively more severe sanctions.
(Circuit Case No. 25-90004, Doc. 16-2 (emphasis added)).
The record before the Court does not indicate that Plaintiff has paid the
sanctions imposed by the Circuit. Even if he has paid the sanctions, Plaintiff has not
sought leave to file the instant case as ordered by the Circuit. This Court may not
disregard the Circuit's Orders, as Circuit precedent is binding on this Court. See, e.g.,
Jett Racing & Sales, Inc. v. Transamerica Corn. Fin. Corp., 892 F. Supp. 161, 163
Case 3:25-cv-00637-BAJ-RLB Document 8 01/30/26 Page 2 of 3

(S.D. Tex. 1995) ("That proposition, however, must be addressed to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, the decisions of which are binding on this Court.").
After considering Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1), the Report (Doc. 5), and
Plaintiffs Objections to same (Doc. 6; Doc. 7), the Court APPROVES the
Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the Court s
opinion in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Objection to Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. The Court has considered Plaintiffs
Amended Objection to the Report in issuing the instant Ruling and Order. (Doc. 7).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned action be and is
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A
Judgment will be entered separately.
1,
E ^	Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this *JU_dSy of January, 2026
.'Q.^
JUDGE BRIAN A. J^^KSON
UNITED STATES D^TRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 3:25-cv-00637-BAJ-RLB Document 8 01/30/26 Page 3 of 3