IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 17, 2009
No. 08-10493 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Summary Calendar Clerk
JOHN J. PETITO
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ERIC A. BREWSTER, ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-appellant John J. Petito, proceeding pro se, appeals a dismissal
with prejudice pursuant to F ED. R. C IV. P. 41(b) of his claim, originally brought
in the Eastern District of New York but transferred to the Northern District of
Texas, against the defendants-appellants, who include Energytech, Inc., and
numerous individuals apparently involved with it. The dismissal was issued by
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, per Judge
Sam Lindsay, on March 31, 2008, pursuant to the March 10, 2008
recommendations of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan. By a March 10 order
from Magistrate Judge Kaplan, Petito was sanctioned $500 for threatening e-
No. 08-10493
mails he sent to opposing counsel on December 23, 2007 and January 11, 2008;
on February 22, 2008, he was also fined $1000 for failure to appear at a show
cause hearing and ordered to appear at a later hearing on March 7, 2008, which
he also failed to attend. He was repeatedly warned of the serious consequences
of his misconduct. Petito appeals, citing no fewer than twenty-four diffusely
stated points of error, some that include subparts.
We have carefully reviewed the record and the party submissions in the
instant case, and we find no error in the judgment of the court below. Petito’s
conduct is inexcusable. He used vulgar and abusive language to refer to judicial
officers, and he sent threatening e-mails to opposing counsel. Under these
circumstances, the dismissal of his case, even despite his unsubstantiated pleas
of financial hardship and inability to appear at multiple show cause hearings,
is by no means an abuse of discretion. He cannot expect the protection of the
very courts he abuses; nor should he expect his action to proceed after debasing
judicial proceedings with vulgar insults, or, more worryingly, issuing threats to
opposing counsel, conduct that may be criminal.
The right to bring claims before the courts is a sacred right in our republic.
But this right is not without limits. We are vested with the power, and we labor
under the duty, to protect judicial officers as well as those appearing in court on
their own behalf and on behalf of others. Such protection was required in this
case due to Mr. Petito’s wrongful conduct, and accordingly, his claims against
the defendants, whether meritorious or not, have been forfeited. The dismissal
with prejudice was appropriate and the sanctions against Mr. Petito were
imposed according to law.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2