Court Opinion

ID: 2965768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:44:39.187624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:33.491271
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1705

                        EDWARD D. COWHIG,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                TOGO WEST, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

                       Defendant, Appellee.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

             [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     Edward D. Cowhig on brief pro se.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael J.
Pineault, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

April 2, 1999

                                
                                
              Per Curiam.  Having scrutinized the record and the
    parties' submissions, we affirm the order of dismissal and the
    injunction against further filings essentially for the reasons
    recited by the district court.  We add only the following
    comments.  
        It is well established that courts have the power to issue
    injunctions "barring a party ... from filing and processing
    frivolous and vexatious lawsuits."  Gordon v. United States
    Dep't of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir. 1977) (per
    curiam).  While such measures are "the exception to the general
    rule of free access to the courts," Pavilonis v. King, 626 F.2d
    1075, 1079 (1st Cir. 1980), the district court was justified
    here in concluding that injunctive relief was warranted. 
    Plaintiff has now filed five meritless actions in the District
    of Massachusetts, and at least two others elsewhere, pertaining
    to the same incident--his 1962 discharge from the Army.  Where
    a litigant has demonstrated a "propensity to file repeated
    suits ... involving the same or similar claims" of a "frivolous
    or vexatious nature," a bar on further filings is appropriate. 
    Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d 399, 409 (1st Cir. 1985) (per
    curiam); accord, e.g., Pavilonis, 626 F.2d at 1078 (noting that
    "plaintiffs bent on reopening closed cases" fit into "classic
    mold" for injunctive relief). 
        Nor does the injunction here suffer from any of the
    deficiencies that have been cited in other cases.  Plaintiff
    was given ample "notice that filing restrictions were
    contemplated."  Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d
    32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993) (per curiam).  The court made adequate
    findings demonstrating the need for an injunction, and the
    record was "sufficiently developed" to support those findings. 
    Id.  And the injunction was "narrowly drawn to fit the specific
    vice encountered."  Castro, 775 F.2d at 410.  For example, it
    pertains only to filings in the local district court, brought
    against the United States or an agency or employee thereof,
    involving the 1962 discharge.  And it allows plaintiff, with
    leave of court, to make new filings upon a showing that they
    are not barred by res judicata.
        Filing restrictions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. 
    See, e.g., id. at 408.  No abuse of discretion being apparent,
    the judgment is summarily affirmed.
        Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.