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February 9, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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1995) (unpublished per curiam) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, _______ ________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