SHUPER v. CHANDLER et al

Filing 119

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS & WARNING TO PLAINTIFF denying 115 Fifth Motion to Clarify; denying 116 Sixth Motion to Clarify; denying 117 Second Motion to Amend By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ALLA I. SHUPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
REBECCA CHANDLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-110-GZS

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS & WARNING TO PLAINTIFF
Before the Court are: Plaintiff’s Fifth Motion to Clarify (ECF No. 115), Plaintiff’s Sixth
Motion to Clarify (ECF No. 116) and Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No.
117). To the extent the Court retains jurisdiction to decide these motions, the Court hereby
DENIES all of these Motions, which are patently frivolous given the Court’s prior orders and
procedural context of this case.
A review of pro se Plaintiff Shuper’s recent electronic filings indicates that she has once
again resorted to the filing of frivolous papers with this Court. On July 9, 2013, this Court
warned Plaintiff Shuper that further groundless and frivolous filings could result in the
imposition of sanctions, including forfeiture of electronic filing access or requiring Court
approval for any future filings. (See ECF No. 57.) On July 29 & 30, 2013, Plaintiff then filed
notices of appeal (ECF No. 79 & 86). On July 29, 2013, the Court issued Ms. Shuper a second
Cok warning (ECF No. 81). See Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32 (1st Cir.
1993) (requiring that the Court warn any litigant before restricting the litigant’s ability to file).
Since that time, the Court has repeatedly entered orders reserving ruling on various motions filed
and indicating that it would await final disposition of the appeal before taking any further action
in this case (ECF Nos. 104, 108 & 111). Most recently, the Court also explicitly instructed
Plaintiff not to file on this Court’s docket items that she had already filed with the Court of
Appeals. (See ECF No. 111.)

Plaintiff Shuper has ignored this Court’s warnings and instructions.1 On October 25,
2013, Ms. Shuper attempted to file by e-mail to the Court’s electronic filing in-box a variety of
“supplemental records” with no motion of any kind. The Court instructed the Clerk not to
docket these items. Since that time, Plaintiff Shuper has sent six emails to the electronic filing
in-box attaching in excess of 100 pages of motions and attachments. Excluding duplicative
documents, all of the items received have been docketed (ECF Nos. 115-118). Ms. Shuper has
also called the Clerk’s Office repeatedly since October 25, 2013 indicating that she will continue
to make similar filings on the docket.
Having reviewed all of Plaintiff’s recent activity, the Court readily finds that Ms. Shuper
has become an abusive litigant. Since June 25, 2013, Ms. Shuper has deliberately and repeatedly
failed to follow the rules and instructions of this Court and, as a result, has wasted the Court’s
time and resources. The Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s Shuper’s electronic filing privileges are SUSPENDED. No future filings sent
to this Court via e-mail will be docketed. Plaintiff Shuper shall make any and all future
filings in this case via mail or in-person delivery to the Clerk’s Office. Plaintiff will
continue to receive notice of electronic filings and orders (NEFs) in this case and service
to Plaintiff Shuper shall continue to be made in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 5(b)(2)(E).
(2) Absent leave of the Court, Plaintiff Shuper shall file no further motions or attachments in
this case until this Court receives a mandate on her pending appeals.2
Plaintiff Shuper is hereby WARNED that any e-mail or filing sent to the Court in
violation of this Order may result in the Court finding Plaintiff Shuper in contempt of
court. Such a contempt finding could include criminal penalties.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge

Dated this 28th day of October, 2013.
1

The Court notes that the Clerk has also corresponded directly with Plaintiff Shuper regarding her improper e-mail
communications. See 10/23/2013 Ltr. from Clerk to Shuper (on file with D. Me. Clerk’s Office).
2

This restriction shall not prevent Plaintiff from filing an additional paper notice of appeal within the time allowed
by the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure.

2