1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3542

___________ M . R. M I KKI L I NE NI

v . GI BS ON- T HOMAS E NGI NE E RI NG C OM P ANY; E DWARD S CH M I T T ; M AR K GE RA ; M CD ONAL D, S NYDE R A ND L I GHT CA P ; J OHN P . M E RL O; BA NK OF AM E RI CA ; GAR Y P . CA RU S O; C O M M O N W E A L T H O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 09- cv- 01026) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r thurJ . Schw ab

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay11, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : M ay1 2 , 2 0 1 0 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

A ppel l antM . R . M i kki l i neni i ni t i at ed a pr o s e ci vi l act i on i n U ni t ed St at esT h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t M ik k ili n e n i h a d f iled o v e r 1 0 0 c a se s in c o u rts 1 thr oughoutthe l and. 2 D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a aga i ns tG i bs on- T hom as E ngi neer i ng C om pany ( “G T E ”) and tw o of i t s empl oy ees , E dw ar d Schm i t tand M ark G er a, among ot her s . A ft er th e a c t i o n wa s tr a n s f

e rr e d t o th e W e s t e rn Di s tr i c to f P e n n s y l v a n i a a n d d o c k e t e d a tD. C. C iv . N o . 0 4 -c v -0 0 4 9 1 , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t s ua sp o n te i n an or der ent er ed on A pr i l 21, 2004. T he courtr eas oned thatM i kki l i neni had pr evi ous l ybeen det erm i ned t o have e ngaged i n vexat i ous l i t i gat i on agai ns tthe named defe ndant s , and that the i ns t antcompl ai ntcont ai ned cl ai m s i dent i cal t o thos e pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed. T he 1 compl ai ntw as w hol l yi ns ubs t ant i al , fr i vol ous , and compl et el ydevoi d of m er i t , and thus the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed i tforl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o Feder al R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . S e e O n e i d a I n d i a n N a t i o n o f N . Y . v . O n e i d a C o u n ty, N .Y ., 4 1 4 U .S . 6 6 1 , 6 6 6 (1 9 7 4 ) (s o m e f e d e ra l q u e stio n s a re “ so in su b sta n tial, im p lau sib le, f

o re c lo se d b yp rio r d e c isio n s o f th is C o u rt, o r o th e rw ise c o m p lete lyd e v o id of m er i tas nott o i nvol ve a f eder al contr over s yw i thi n the j ur i s di ct i on of the D i s tr i ct C o u rt” ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d ire c ted th e C ler k n o t to a c c e p t an yo th e r p ro se c o m p lain ts fr om M i kki l i neni unl es s he obt ai ned pr i orauthor i zat i on fr om the court . M i kki l i neni fi l ed a re sp o n se to th e c o u rt’s o rd e r b u t h e d id n o t f ile a n o tice o f

a p p e a l. O n A pr i l 9, 2009, M i kki l i neni fi l ed a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on i n D . C . C i v. N o. 0 4 - c v - 0 0 4 9 1 , wh i c h th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td e n i e d i n a n o r d e re n t e r e d o n Ap r i l 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 . On3

M ay11, 2009, M i kki l i neni fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on of thator der , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tal s o deni ed. M i kki l i neni has s epar at el yappea l ed the A pr i l 13, 2009 or der of the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, s ee C. A . N o. 09- 2434. O n J une 23, 2009, M i kki l i neni fi l ed an appl i cat i on forl eave t o fi l e a c om pl ai ntw i th new caus es of act i on and addi t i onal part i es . A ft erG T E fi l ed a r es pons e as s ert i ng thatthe pr opos ed act i on w as r el at ed t o M i kki l i neni ’ s hi s t oryof vexa t i ous l i t i gat i on, the D i s tr i ctC our t , i n an o rd e r e n ter e d o n Ju n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 , d e n ied th e a p p lica tio n a s a n im p e rm iss ib le a ttem p t to h a ra ss G T E a n d c irc u m v e n t th e c o u rt’s p re v io u s ru lin g s. M ik k ili n e n i h a s s e p a ra tely a p p e a le d th e J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e r o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt , s e e C .A . N o . 0 9 -2 9 9 7 . U n d e ter re d , o n Ju ly1 9 , 2 0 0 9 , M ik k ili n e n i f iled a b ra n d n e w c iv il righ ts a c tio n in U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

C o lu m b ia a g a in st G T E a n d its empl oy ees , among ot her s . J us tas he had i n hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, m ot i on for r econs i der at i on, and appl i cat i on forl eave t o fi l e a c om pl ai ntw i th new caus es of ac t i on, M i kki l i neni as s ert ed thata bank a ccounthe hel d fora nonpr ofi tatB ank of A m er i ca ha d been a t t ache d i m pr oper l ybyG T E i n J ul y , 2008 t o s at i s fya j udgm entagai ns thi m i n t he amount of $140, 000. 00. Fear i ng thatM i kki l i neni w as forum - s hoppi ng t o avoi d the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a’ s i nj unct i on, the D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a tr ans ferr ed the a c tio n to th e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . G T E then fi l ed a r es pons e, as s ert i ng thatM i kki l i neni ’ s new compl ai nthad been f i l ed i n vi ol at i on of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s A pr i l 21, 2004 or derenj oi ni ng hi m fr om4

fi l i ng anyfur therl i t i gat i on w i thoutpr i orauthor i zat i on fr om the court . C ons trued as an a p p lica tio n f

o r le a v e to f

ile a c o m p lain t, i t w a s im p e rm iss ib lyd e sig n e d to c o llate ra lly a tta c k a v a lid s ta te c o u rt ju d g m e n t r e la te d to M ik k ilin e n i’ s h is to ry o f v e x a tio u s litig a tio n . I n an or derent er ed on A ugus t17, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded that the co m plai nt, w hich M i kk i l i nen i ori ginal l yfi l ed in the D i stri ctof C olum bia, w as a “bl at antatt empt ” t o ci r cumventthe court ’ s pr i oror derenj oi ni ng hi m fr om fi l i ng any fur thercompl ai nt s w i thoutpr i orauthor i zat i on fr om the court . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ct C our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntand di d nots epar at el ycons true i tas an appl i cat i on for l eave to fi l e a new com plai nt. M i kk i l i nen i app eal s.

W e w i l l aff

i r m . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. I ns ofaras th e D istric t C o u rt p re v io u slye n jo in e d M ik k ili n e n i f

ro m f ili n g a n yf

u rth e r c o m p lain ts in the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a unl es s he obt ai ned pr i orauthor i zat i on fr om the court , and M i kki l i neni fi l ed the i ns t antcompl ai ntw i thouts eeki ng l eave of court , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n di s m i s s i ng the compl ai ntas havi ng been f i l ed i n vi ol at i on of a v ali d co u rto rde r.

W e w i l l aff

i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s i ng the compl ai ntas havi ng been f

i l ed i n vi ol at i on the court ’ s or derenj oi ni ng M i kki l i neni fr om fi l i ng any f u rth e r c o m p lain ts in th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia w ith o u t lea v e o f c o u rt.