Court Opinion

ID: 2964590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:59.739111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:34.463610
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1264

                           ALFREDO G. HUALDE-REDIN, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                          ROYAL BANK OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________
                                 ____________________

               Alfredo Hualde-Redin,  Maria Susana  Costa  and Paul  Martin
               ____________________   ___________________      ____________
          Hualde on brief pro se.
          ______
               Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor  General, Edda  Serrano-Blasini,
               ________________                      _____________________
          Deputy   Solicitor  General,  and   Vannessa  Ramirez,  Assistant
                                              _________________
          Solicitor General, Department of  Justice, on brief for appellees
          State Court Judges and  Marshals, The Clerk of The  Supreme Court
          of Puerto Rico, and Government Attorney Ivette Acosta.
               Goldman  Antonetti &  Cordova on  brief for  appellees Ramon
               _____________________________
          Dapena, Jorge Souss, Ivonne  Palerm, Goldman Antonetti & Cordova,
          Mr. Carlos Del Valle and American International Insurance Co.
               De Corral & De  Mier on brief for appellee  General Accident
               ____________________
          Insurance Co.

                                 ____________________
                                    March 19, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   We  affirm the  dismissal of  plaintiffs'
                 ___________

            action  for the reasons stated  by the district  court in its

            January 31, 1996 decision.

                 No basis warranting Judge  Fuste's recusal was stated in

            any of plaintiffs' motions.

                 With  respect  to  the district  court's  order  barring

            plaintiff from proceeding pro se in the future, we clarify as

            follows.  The last  sentence of the court's January  31, 1996

            order is vacated and the following is substituted:

                      Mr.  Alfredo  Hualde-Redin  is  enjoined  from
                 filing any civil action pro se in the United States
                 District  Court  for the  District  of Puerto  Rico
                 without  first obtaining permission from that court
                 to proceed pro se.  In seeking leave to proceed pro
                 se,  Mr.  Alfredo  Hualde-Redin  must  (1)  clearly
                 caption his  motion as an "Application  Pursuant to
                 Court Order  Seeking Leave to Proceed  Pro Se," (2)
                 attach  a copy  of this  order to  the motion,  (3)
                 certify  that  the  claim  or claims  he  seeks  to
                 present  are  new claims  never  before  raised and
                 disposed of on the merits by any federal court, (4)
                 certify that the claim  or claims are not frivolous
                 or  taken in  bad  faith, and  (5)  include in  the
                 motion the following information:

                           A.  A list of all lawsuits currently
                      pending  or  filed  previously  with  the
                      district   court,  including   the  name,
                      number, and citation,  if applicable,  of
                      each  case,  and  the  current  status or
                      disposition of any appeal; and

                           B.   A  list apprising  the district
                      court of all  outstanding injunctions  or
                      orders  limiting  plaintiff's  access  to
                      federal   court,  including   orders  and
                      injunctions  requiring plaintiff  to seek
                      leave to file matters pro se or requiring
                      him to  be  represented by  an  attorney,
                      including the name, number, and citation,

                                         -2-

                      if  applicable, of  all  such  orders  or
                      injunctions.

                 Failure to  comply strictly with the  terms of this
                 injunction will  be sufficient grounds  for denying
                 leave to proceed pro se.

            The order, as clarified, is affirmed.  Our clarification does

            not   prevent  the  district   court  from  imposing  further

            conditions  or  sanctions  in   the  future  if  the  present

            injunction is  not  sufficient  to  curb  Mr.  Hualde-Redin's

            frivolous  and  abusive  litigation.   Even  if  Mr.  Alfredo

            Hualde-Redin  does  certify  in   the  terms  specified,  the

            district court  retains authority to deny  the Application in

            the exercise of its reasoned discretion.

                 Appellees  have  requested  attorneys'  fees   in  their

            briefs.   Although  appellants'  appellate arguments  are all

            frivolous, we  deny appellees'  request  for attorneys'  fees

            because  appellees have not  yet filed a  separate motion for

            attorneys' fees  as required  by Fed.  R. App.  P. 38.   This

            denial is without prejudice to filing a motion in  compliance

            with Fed. R. App. P.  38 and Loc. R. 39.2.   Appellees' costs

            pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 39 will be allowed.

                 The judgment, as clarified, is affirmed.
                                                ________

                                         -3-