Book v. Tobin et al

Filing 203

ORDER: Plaintiffs motions to reopen 189 , to file excess pages 197 , and to file supplemental reply memoranda 198 , 201 , 202 are DENIED. Defendants motion 193 for warning is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 6/14/2012. (Flagg, K.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ETHAN BOOK JR.,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 3:04cv442 (JBA)

v.
RICHARD TOBIN
and
MARTIN L. NIGRO,
Defendants.

June 14, 2012

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60(b) MOTION TO RE–OPEN JUDGMENT OF
COURT RULINGS
Plaintiff Ethan Book Jr. moves to reopen and for reconsideration [Doc. # 189] of the
Court’s Order [Doc. # 187] denying his previous Motion for Reconsideration, Motions for
Articulation , Motions for Leave to File Supplements, his motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and adopting Magistrate Judge Margolis’s Recommended Ruling. Plaintiff
also moves for leave to file excess pages [Doc. # 197] and to file three supplemental reply
memoranda [Docs. ## 198, 201, 202]. Defendants move for “warning of leave to file
sanctions” [Doc. # 193] asking that the Court warn Plaintiff “that the future filing of
frivolous motions or other submissions . . . may result in imposing a requirement that he
obtain permission of this Court before making future filings.” For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s motions will be denied, and Defendants’ motion will be granted.
I.

Motions to Reopen, to File Excess Pages, and to File Supplemental Replies
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[o]n motion and

just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for
the following pertinent reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.
Plaintiff’s latest motion seeks to re–litigate previous rulings of this Court and of the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Rooker–Feldman
doctrine and that Defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. As this Court
explained in its November 1, 2010 Ruling, the mandate rule provides that “where issues have
been explicitly or implicitly decided on appeal, the district court is obliged, on remand, to
follow the decision of the appellate court.” Burrell v. United States, 467 F.3d 160, 165 (2d Cir.
2006). Thus, there is no basis for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling denying Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff’s motion to reopen and for reconsideration also asks the Court to consider
“new evidence” of an “interagency governmental conspiracy” in the form of a letter sent to
the Office of the Attorney General (Pl.’s Mot. Reopen at 15–16; Ex. 4 to Pl.’s Mot.), which
has no evident bearing on his case against these Defendants and comes nowhere near
meeting the Rule 60(b) standards for reopening his case. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen is
denied.
Finally, Plaintiff also moves to file excess pages, and to file three supplemental reply
memoranda. Under Local Rule 7(d), “[a] reply brief may not exceed 10 pages, and must be
strictly confined to a discussion of matters raised by the responsive brief.” D. Conn. Loc. R.
7(d). Further, surreply briefs may be filed only with leave of court. Marczeski v. Law, 122
F.Supp.2d 315, 317 n. 2 (D. Conn. 2000). What Mr. Book submitted as his “Reply brief”with
2

“excess pages” is 32 pages long, though it is accompanied by four attachments labeled
“continuation of main document,” making his proposed Reply a total of 153 pages. Though
Plaintiff initially references Defendant’s opposing memorandum, his filing fails, both in
form and substance, to meet the responsive purpose of a Reply brief, as it continues to
dispute the Court’s ruling granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of judicial
immunity. Plaintiff’s three additional proposed supplemental reply memoranda similarly fail
to meet the standard for reply briefs, and only reassert Plaintiff’s contentions that the
Rooker–Feldman doctrine is inapplicable to the present case, proffering irrelevant evidence.
Plaintiff’s motions to file excess pages and to file supplemental reply briefs are therefore
denied.
II.

Motion for Warning of Leave to File Sanctions
Defendants move the Court to warn Plaintiff that filing of frivolous motions or other

submissions, except a notice of appeal, may result in imposing a requirement that he obtain
permission of the Court prior to making future filings. (Def.’s Mot. at 1.)
The Second Circuit has ruled that an order enjoining a litigant from filing vexatious
motions in any action may be used as a remedy for litigants who have “abused the judicial
process to harass defendants with vexations and frivolous suits.” See, e.g., Sassower v.
Sansverie, 885 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1989); In Re: Martin–Trigona, 795 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1986).
In this case, the Second Circuit has already warned Mr. Book about filing frivolous motions
in the future, stating, “we warn the Appellant that the future filing of frivolous appeals,
motions, or petitions may result in the imposition of a requirement that he obtain

3

permission of the court before making future filings.” (Jan. 18, 2011 Mandate of USCA [Doc.
# 188] at 1.)1
Since this Court’s Ruling on August 17, 2005 [Doc. # 81] granting Defendants’
motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has filed multiple motions for reconsideration [Docs. ## 85, 86,
141, 154, 165], a motion to amend [Doc. # 90], motions for leave to supplement his prior
motions [Docs. ## 99, 112, 118, 124, 135, 136, 139, 142, 149, 151, 166, 168, 172, 180, 181, 182,
183, 197, 198, 201], motions for articulation [Docs. ## 153, 159, 175], a motion for relief
from judgment [Doc. # 129] and motions to reopen his case [Docs. ## 89, 189] based on his
assertion “over a long–term period . . . that he is the victim of a massive interstate,
interagency, governmental conspiracy.” (Pl.’s Obj. to Def.’s Mot. [Doc. # 199] at 5.) From
the date of the Second Circuit’s Mandate [Doc. # 188] in January 2011 warning Mr. Book

1

Mr. Book has reached the stage of pleadings prohibition or warning of sanctions in
other state and federal cases based on his frivolous filings. See, e.g., Ethan Book, Ethan Book
for U.S. Senate v. Bysiewicz, et al., No. 11-2739cv (2d Cir. Order, Nov. 17, 2011) (“[t]he
continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or clearly meritless appeals, motions, or other
papers, will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include a leave–to–file sanction
requiring Appellant to obtain permission from this Court prior to filing any further
submissions in this Court.”); Book v. Mendoza, No. 3:07-cv-1468(CSH), 2012 WL 201732,
at *4 (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2012) (“[t]his Court, in light of plaintiff's seven unsuccessful motions
for reconsideration, imposed an explicit filing ban upon him. . . . Plaintiff's current effort to
circumvent this ban, approaching the Court by letter, constitutes yet another fruitless
attempt to expunge the affirmed judgment dismissing his action. Due to his pro se status,
the Court clarifies for plaintiff for the final time that the action of Book v. Mendoza, No.
3:07–cv–1468 (CSH), is permanently closed. Any future correspondence to the Court and/or
attempted filings in this matter shall be rejected by the Clerk and/or returned by the
Court.”); Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. v. Ethan Book, Jr., 110 Conn. App.
833, 835–36 (2008), petition for cert. denied, 290 Conn. 909 (2009) (issuing an order sua
sponte prohibiting Mr. Book from filing further motions or documents unless he obtained
permission of the court); Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. v. Ethan Book, No.
CV03-0403879-S, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2054, at *7 (ordering that Mr. Book was
precluded from filing any motions to vacate, reconsider, or reargue that Court’s ruling).
4

about the future filing of frivolous motions, he has filed four motions and two objections.
Mr. Book’s filings are duplicative, digressive, and lack any relationship to this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction or the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, and require judicial resources to sort
through and rule on, notwithstanding their lack of merit. Plaintiff is hereby warned that this
case is closed and must remain so as previously explained. If Mr. Book continues to burden
this Court with frivolous motions seeking reconsideration of this disposition, an injunction
will be issued directing the Clerk of this Court to refuse to accept for filing any submissions
from him, unless he first obtains leave of the Court to file each pleading sought to be filed.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motions to reopen [Doc. # 189], to file

excess pages [Doc. # 197], and to file supplemental reply memoranda [Docs. ## 198, 201,
202] are DENIED. Defendants’ motion [Doc. # 193] for warning is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 14th day of June, 2012.

5