2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-31-2012

In Re: Michael Shemonsky

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-4284

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Michael Shemonsky " (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1497.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1497
1

GLD-089 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-4284

___________

IN RE: MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3-11-cv-01085)

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 12, 2012

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., AND STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 31, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Michael Shemonsky appeals the District Court’s order affirming the Bankruptcy 

Court’s order closing his bankruptcy case. We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

In 1994, Shemonsky filed a bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court closed the 

case in February 1995. In January 2010, Shemonsky filed a motion to reopen the case. 

He sought to list assets he had not originally listed in his petition. Shemonsky contended 
2

that he was entitled to a salary and bonds from Atlantic Financial. The Bankruptcy Court 

reopened the case. On April 14, 2011, after further pleadings and hearings, the 

Bankruptcy Court closed the case. Shemonsky filed a notice of appeal to the District 

Court from the Bankruptcy Court’s April 14, 2011, order. After the District Court 

affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order, Shemonsky filed a motion for reconsideration. 

The District Court denied the motion for reconsideration, and Shemonsky filed a notice 

of appeal.

Because Shemonsky is proceeding in forma pauperis on this appeal, we must 

analyze his appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), we must dismiss an appeal if the action (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary damages 

from a defendant with immunity. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either legal or 

factual reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Shemonsky has been claiming to be owed money related to Atlantic Financial for 

over twenty years. His efforts have been unsuccessful. Shemonsky’s claims relating to 

Atlantic Financial were dismissed by the District Court for the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania in 1990 in Shemonsky v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 733 F. Supp. 892 

(M.D. Pa.), aff'd 922 F. 2d 833 (3d Cir. 1990). On September 10, 1991, the District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania enjoined Shemonsky from representing 

that he was an agent of Atlantic Financial, from entering the property, and from 

communicating any threat to any agent of Atlantic Financial. On February 18, 2003, the 

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania enjoined Shemonsky from filing 
3

any further pleadings related to his claims concerning Atlantic Financial. In affirming 

that order, we noted:

Since [1990], Shemonsky has filed at least ten lawsuits in the Middle 

District, and has also filed suits in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, related to the Atlantic Financial claims, 

and/or his 1994 arrest. Shemonsky has also initiated more than thirty 

proceedings in this Court. There is no doubt that the series of meritless 

lawsuits filed by Shemonsky shows an abuse of the court system that, 

because it is likely to continue, warrants some restriction on his litigating 

opportunities.

See Shemonsky v. United States, C.A. No. 03-1848.

The Bankruptcy Court concluded that Atlantic Financial, as a savings and loan 

institution, could not receive bankruptcy relief. We need not reach the issue of whether 

Atlantic Financial may be a bankruptcy debtor. It has already been determined that 

Shemonsky may not represent himself as an agent of Atlantic Financial. Thus he may not 

file pleadings on its behalf. To the extent that Shemonsky is claiming that he or his 

bankruptcy estate is entitled to funds from Atlantic Financial, these claims are without 

merit as we have previously held.

Shemonsky has wasted the resources of the courts of this Circuit with frivolous 

litigation over Atlantic Financial for over twenty years. We warn him that initiating or 

continuing litigation in the courts of this Circuit, including the Bankruptcy Court, 

regarding Atlantic Financial may result in monetary sanctions and additional filing 

injunctions.
4

For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Shemonsky’s request that we transfer the appeal to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is denied.