Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04572/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04572-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp
Appellee
Resolution Trust Corp
Rule 43 substitution
Michael R. Shemonsky
Appellant

Document Text:

HLD-091 (February 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4572

___________

MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY,

Appellant

v.

*FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

*(Amended per Clerk’s Order dated 2/1/10)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. Civil No. 93-cv-00004)

District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 25, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

 Opinion filed: March 9, 2010 

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Shemonsky appeals pro se from the District Court’s November 19,

2009 order. We will summarily affirm. 

Case: 09-4572 Document: 003110050354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2010
2

In February 1993, the District Court ordered that Shemonsky be

permanently enjoined from filing in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania any further

pleadings or documents relating to this case without prior approval of the court. In

November 2009, Shemonsky submitted a “Motion to Transfer to the Bankruptcy Court.” 

The District noted that the motion was “almost incomprehensible and plainly frivolous,”

and did not allow Shemonsky to file the motion because he did not first seek the court’s

permission. His appeal from the 1993 order was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and

we affirmed the subsequent dismissal of a 60(b) motion that he filed in violation of that

order. See Shemonsky v. Resolution Trust Corp., 132 Fed. Appx. 424 (3d Cir. 2005). 

The District Court’s refusal to file Shemonsky’s motion was proper. 

Because no “substantial question” is presented by this appeal, we will affirm the order of

the District Court.

Case: 09-4572 Document: 003110050354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2010