USCA1 Opinion
July 18, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1354
RICHARD A. COLE, AND RICHARD A. COLE, M.D., INC.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
ERNEST J. DISANTIS, JR., FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, WESTERN, PA.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se. ______________________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Having carefully reviewed the record, __________
appellant's brief, and appellees' motions for summary
disposition, we affirm the order of dismissal and the
injunction for the reasons stated by the district court. We
add only these comments.
Because appellant did not offer any showing that a
transfer would be in the interest of justice, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
failing to order one under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). See Cote v. ___ ____
Wadel, 796 F.2d 981, 984 (7th Cir. 1986); Dubin v. United _____ _____ ______
States, 380 F.2d 813, 816 (5th Cir. 1967)(it is not "in the ______
interest of justice" to use 1406(a) to "aid a non-diligent
plaintiff who knowingly files a case in the wrong district");
see also Mulcahy v. Guertler, 416 F.Supp. 1083, 1086 (D.Mass. ________ _______ ________
1976).
With respect to the injunction, the district court
made adequate findings that appellant's many improper filings
in Massachusetts were an abuse of process causing needless
expense and inconvenience. The injunction concerns only
filings against the federal defendants in Massachusetts
district court, and it allows appellant to apply to the
district court for leave to file claims upon a showing of
personal jurisdiction, proper venue, and merit. In these
circumstances, we perceive no abuse of discretion in this
limitation on appellant's future filings. See Pavilonis v. ___ _________
-2-
King, 626 F.2d 1075, 1079 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. ____ ____________
829 (1980); cf. Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d ___ ___ ____________________________
32, 34 (1st Cir. 1993).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___
-3-