Court Opinion

ID: 2965047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:33.122069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.582853
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1226

                                ARTHUR D'AMARIO, III,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               FRANK J. RUSSO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Arthur D'Amario, III, on brief pro se.
            ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                   December 5, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Arthur D'Amario, III, has appealed an order
                 __________

            of the district court, dated January 7, 1997, that denied his

            motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  60(b).  That denial

            is  well  supported  by  the November  12,  1996  Report  and

            Recommendation  of the  magistrate judge, which  the district

            court  accepted and adopted.   Upon our review of appellant's

            brief  and  the  record  on appeal,  we  affirm  that denial,

            essentially for the reasons stated in the magistrate's report

            and recommendation.

                 The  January 7, 1997  district court order  also recited

            that "any pleadings, motions, complaints, or other  documents

            which  the plaintiff  hereafter files in  this court  will be

            immediately dismissed or  stricken from the record  unless he

            files an  affidavit, under  oath," that he  has paid  in full

            "all outstanding sanctions imposed over the years in a number
             ___

            of  frivolous  cases  he  has  filed."     (Emphasis  in  the

            original).  We  construe this language as  enjoining D'Amario

            from  filing any  pleadings,  motions, complaints,  or  other

            documents that arise from and/or  relate to his claim that he

            has a  right to photograph  concerts at the  Providence Civic

            Center, including  filings relating  to satellite  litigation

            that  D'Amario has  repeatedly initiated  since his  original

            complaint  in  1983.   So  construed,  we  find no  abuse  of

            discretion in the imposition of  this injunction.  See Cok v.
                                                               ___ ___

            Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 34 (1st Cir. 1993)
            ____________________________

                                         -2-

            (reciting    that   "[f]ederal    courts   plainly    possess

            discretionary  powers  to  regulate  the conduct  of  abusive

            litigants).   We add  that  we have  previously affirmed  the

            dismissal of a prior lawsuit  for failure to comply with past

            orders  directing  D'Amario   to  pay  attorney's   fees  and

            sanctions in  his related suits.   See D'Amario v.  Pine, No.
                                               ___ ________     ____

            95-2131 (1st Cir. Feb. 1, 1996).

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-