American Express National Bank v. Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AMERICAN EXPRESS
NATIONAL BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL D. WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendant.
:
:
Case No. 2:26-cv-00005
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A.
Jolson
ORDER
American Express National Bank filed suit against Samuel D. Williams and
Strategic Auto Parts LLC in state court, seeking to collect an unpaid credit card
balance. (ECF No. 1-1.) Proceeding pro se, Mr. Williams first attempted to remove
this case on August 14, 2025; the Court remanded the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction on November 4, 2025. See Am. Express Nat’l Bank v. Williams, et al.,
No. 2:25-cv-00916 (S.D. Ohio) (Watson, J.) (ECF No. 13). Less than a month later,
he attempted to remove this case for a second time; the Court again remanded the
case and warned him that further attempts to improperly remove a case may result
in sanctions including a vexatious litigator designation. See Am. Express Nat’l Bank
v. Williams, et al., No. 2:25-cv-01411 (S.D. Ohio) (Morrison, C. J.) (ECF No. 6).
This matter is now before the Court on Mr. Williams’ third notice of removal.
(ECF No. 1.) Also pending are his requests for recusal of the Undersigned and to
proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 3, 6.)
Case: 2:26-cv-00005-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
I. RECUSAL REQUEST
Mr. Williams requests that the Undersigned recuse for “the appearance of
partiality or impropriety” under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and for “actual bias, prejudice, or
personal knowledge of disputed facts” under § 455(b)(1).
A judge’s opinions are grounds for recusal only where they “derive[ ] from an
extrajudicial source” or “they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism
as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555,
(1994). Mere disagreement about the Court’s ruling in a case is not a ground for
disqualification or recusal. See id. at 555–56; Garver v. United States, 846 F.2d
1029, 1031 (6th Cir. 1988).
Mr. Williams primarily takes issue with the Court’s decision to remand this
case “within 24 hours” of his filing his second notice of removal. (ECF No. 3,
PAGEID # 83.) In its Dec. 5, 2025 Order remanding this case for a second time, the
Court found that Mr. Williams’ second notice of removal failed to cure the
jurisdictional deficiencies in his first notice of removal. Am. Express Nat’l Bank, No.
2:25-cv-01411 (ECF No. 6). The fact that the deficiencies in Mr. Williams’ second
notice of removal were immediately obvious to the Court does not demonstrate any
bias or partiality sufficient to require recusal.
II. THIRD NOTICE OF REMOVAL
As the Court explained in its prior remand Orders, this case cannot be
removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction because AENB’s Complaint
includes only two breach-of-contract claims under Ohio law, and it cannot be
removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction because both Mr. Williams and
Case: 2:26-cv-00005-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Strategic Auto Parts are Ohio citizens. See Am. Express Nat’l Bank, No. 2:25-cv-
00916 (ECF No. 13); Am. Express Nat’l Bank, No. 2:25-cv-01411 (ECF No. 6).
In his latest notice of removal, Mr. Williams states that AENB’s original
complaint was styled as “AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, c/o ZWICKER
& ASSOCIATES, P.C.” and argues that the recent substitution of the Glennon Law
Firm for Zwicker as AENB’s counsel in the state court thus “makes it facially clear
that a federally regulated national bank is now the Plaintiff of record, standing
alone.” (ECF No. 1, PAGEID # 6.) But the fact that AENB is a national bank does
not by itself justify removal. Mr. Williams has thus again failed to cure the
jurisdictional deficiencies that the Court identified in his prior notices of removal.
III. VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR DESIGNATION
“Federal courts have recognized their own inherent power and constitutional
obligation to protect themselves from conduct that impedes their ability to perform
their Article III functions and to prevent litigants from encroaching on judicial
resources that are legitimately needed by others.” Johnson v. Univ. Hous., No. 2:06-
cv-628, 2007 WL 4303728, at *12 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 2007) (Holschuh, J.) (citation
omitted). The Sixth Circuit has upheld the imposition of prefiling restrictions on
vexatious litigators. Id. (collecting cases).
Mr. Williams failed to heed the Court’s warning that further attempts to
improperly remove a case to the Court may result in a vexatious litigator
designation. Based on his recognized history of improperly removing cases to this
Court, Mr. Williams is DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR and ENJOINED
Case: 2:26-cv-00005-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
from filing any new complaints or notices of removal without either (i) submitting a
statement from an attorney licensed to practice in this Court or the State of Ohio
certifying that the complaint or notice of removal is non-frivolous, or (ii) tendering a
proposed complaint or notice of removal for review by this Court prior to filing.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for these reasons and those set forth in the Court’s Nov. 4 and
Dec. 5, 2025 Orders, this case is REMANDED to the Fairfield County Municipal
Court. Mr. Williams’ recusal request (ECF No. 3) is DENIED and his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as moot.
Further, Mr. Williams is DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR and
ENJOINED from filing any new complaints or notices of removal without either (i)
submitting a statement from an attorney licensed to practice in this Court or the
State of Ohio certifying that the complaint or notice of removal is non-frivolous, or
(ii) tendering a proposed complaint or notice of removal for review by this Court
prior to filing.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 2:26-cv-00005-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>