Solimine v. United States ( 1996 )

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        February 9, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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