Court Opinion

ID: 2963851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:16:15.079227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:47.240717
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        February 9, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1802

                                  ANTHONY SOLIMINE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Anthony Solimine on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and David S. Mackey,
            _______________                              _______________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   There was  no abuse of  discretion in  the
                 __________

            district  court's  denial   of  plaintiff-appellant   Anthony

            Solimine's motion, filed  pursuant to Fed. R.  Civ. P. 60(b).

            In granting  Solimine's motion to proceed  in forma pauperis,

            in December 1994, the district court expressly indicated that

            it was not  ruling on  the sufficiency of  the complaints  to

            state a claim for relief and that its dismissal of a  similar

            prior complaint was then pending in this court.  On March 24,

            1995,  we  affirmed the  district  court's  dismissal of  two

            substantially identical cases,  noting that those  complaints

            were based  on  "an  indisputably  meritless  legal  theory."

            Solimine v. F.B.I., Nos. 94-1873;  94-1995 (1st Cir. Mar. 24,
            ________    ______

            1995) (unpublished per curiam)  (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,
                                                     _______    ________

            490  U.S. 319,  327  (1989).   The  district court's  action,

            shortly  thereafter  on  April   6,  1996,  that  (1)  denied

            Solimine's  request   to  enlarge  the  time   to  serve  the

            defendants with the instant complaints that do  not differ in

            any  material respect  from his earlier-filed  complaints and

            (2) closed these consolidated cases was completely justified.

                 The government  has  filed a  motion  asking us  to  bar

            Solimine  from  filing  further  appeals against  it  or  its

            agencies relating to Solimine's 1991 hospitalizations and his

            1991  visits to the offices  of the F.B.I.  and U.S. Attorney

            seeking their  help in this matter.  The request is, at best,

            premature in  the absence  of any district  court prohibition

                                         -2-
                                          2

            against Solimine filing any related action there and in light

            of  the fact  that  it appears  that  Solimine has  no  cases

            against  the government  currently  pending in  the  district

            court and the instant appeal is the only one remaining before

            us.  The motion is therefore denied.

                 Nonetheless, our present denial  is without prejudice to
                 Nonetheless
                 ___________

            renewal  by the  government  in the  future, should  Solimine

            continue  to pursue repetitive,  frivolous litigation against

            the government or  its agencies.   We note  that the  instant

            appeal is the  sixth attempt  by Solimine  to seek  appellate

            review  of a matter, which  we have consistently  ruled to be

            without  a  basis  in law.    See  Solimine  v. F.B.I.  Agent
                                          ___  ________     _____________

            Morrill, No.  91-1281 (1st  Cir. Mar. 28,  1991) (unpublished
            _______

            order); Solimine  v. F.B.I., Nos. 94-1873;  94-1995 (1st Cir.
                    ________     ______

            Mar.  24,  1995) (unpublished  per  curiam  disposing of  two

            appeals); Solimine  v. United  States, No. 94-2250  (1st Cir.
                      ________     ______________

            Aug.  29, 1995)  (unpublished  per curiam);  and Solimine  v.
                                                             ________

            United  States,   No.  95-1352  (1st  Cir.   Oct.  26,  1995)
            ______________

            (unpublished per curiam).   Solimine is  warned that, in  the

            event of  future repetitive baseless litigation,  even in the

            absence of any appropriately-tailored  injunction, sanctions,

            pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38, may be imposed.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-
                                          3

                 The  government's motion  for  order  enjoining  Anthony

            Solimine from  filing  further frivolous  appeals  is  denied
                                                                   ______

            without prejudice.
            __________________

                                         -4-
                                          4