12-1834-cv
Mitchell v. Con Edison
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN
CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE
EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION
“SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 30th day of August, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT: REENA RAGGI,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN THEODORE MITCHELL,
Appellant,
DOROTHY BARNEY,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 12-1834-cv
CON EDISON,
Defendant-Appellee.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*
The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.
FOR APPELLANT: Stephen T. Mitchell, pro se, South Orange, New
Jersey.
FOR APPELLEE: Barbara Jane Carey, Richard Levin, Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York,
New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Kiyo A. Matsumoto, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment entered on April 12, 2012, is AFFIRMED.
Stephen Theodore Mitchell, an attorney disbarred from practice in the state of New
York, see In re Mitchell, 76 A.D.3d 269, 903 N.Y.S.2d 749 (2d Dep’t 2010), appeals pro se
from a judgment holding him in civil contempt and requiring him to pay a monetary sanction
and attorneys’ fees. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, which we reference only as
necessary to explain our decision to affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district
court.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees
and impose sanctions for counsel’s failure to obey discovery orders. See Townsend v.
Benjamin Enters., Inc., 679 F.3d 41, 58 (2d Cir. 2012); Fonar Corp. v. Magnetic Resonance
Plus, Inc., 128 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1997). “We review a finding of contempt under an
abuse of discretion standard that is more rigorous than usual.” S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v.
2
Global NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 145 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Although a court “is ordinarily obligated to afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants,” that
rule does not apply where, as here, a person trained as a lawyer represents himself. Tracy
v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010).
After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for
substantially the reasons articulated by the district court in its detailed decision entered on
March 16, 2012.
We have considered all of Mitchell’s arguments not specifically addressed by the
district court and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court
3