Book v. Tobin et al
ORDER: denying 211 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 212 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 5/13/2013. (Rodko, B.)
ELECTRONIC RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, filed 3/28/13 (Dkt. #211) AND ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
SUPPLEMENT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed 4/25/13 (Dkt.
#212) in BOOK V. TOBIN, 04 CV 442 (JBA)
5/13/13 – The factual and procedural history behind this nine-year-old litigation is set forth
in the various published opinions in this case, namely Book v. Tobin, 2005 WL 1981803 (D.
Conn. Aug. 16, 2005)(granting defendants' Motion to Dismiss), aff'd, 263 Fed. Appx. 174 (2d
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1105, reh. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1692 (2009), 2010 WL
4436037 (D. Conn. Nov. 1, 2010)(denying plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration and
Articulation), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 293, reh. denied, 132 S. Ct. 806 (2011), 2012 WL
2190740 (D. Conn. June 14, 2012)(denying plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Judgment of Court
Rulings). In her June 2012 Ruling, Judge Arterton recounted the numerous times that the
Second Circuit, this district court, the Connecticut Appellate Court and the Connecticut
Superior Court barred plaintiff from any additional filings without court permission, 2012 WL
2190740, at *2 & n.1. The June 2012 Ruling held:
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.
Id. at *2. Immediately thereafter, plaintiff filed two additional motions (Dkts. ##204-05),
at which time Judge Arterton ordered that "THE CLERK IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO REFUSE
ANY FUTURE SUBMISSIONS FROM PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE WITHOUT PRIOR LEAVE OF
THE COURT FOR EACH PLEADING SOUGHT TO BE FILED." (Dkt.#206) (emphasis in
original). Following plaintiff's appeal (Dkts. ##207-08), on February 13, 2013, the Second
Circuit directed plaintiff to either file a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, or pay the filing
fees within fourteen days of the court order. (Dkts. ##209-10).
Plaintiff's motions (Dkts. ##211-12) are denied, in that they simply rehash issues that
have been put to rest on multiple occasions in the far past, in this lawsuit or in his myriad
other lawsuits, or simply have nothing to do with any issue here.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?