Johnson v. Continental Airlines Corporation

Filing 148

Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered in response to 142 . The Court hereby orders that, in addition to the filing restrictions the Court has already imposed, Johnson is enjoined from contacting United employees and counsel for United concerning the matters raised in this action. The Court warns Johnson that failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions.(PSSA, 3)

Case 1:03-cv-11992-PBS Document 148 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
STEVAN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 03-11992-PBS

ORDER
November 14, 2022

Saris, D.J.

Now before the Court is a Notice filed by counsel for
United Airlines, Inc., (“United” or “Defendant”) which is the
successor in interest to Continental Airlines Corporation
(“Continental), concerning Plaintiff’s communications with
United, its employees, and its counsel.

(Dkt. No. 142).

United

requests that the Court enjoin Johnson from making these
communications.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will

GRANT this request.
I.

Background
Over sixteen years ago, the Court dismissed this employment

discrimination action brought by Johnson.

(Dkt. No. 69).

On

January 5, 2007, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal and
subsequently issued its corresponding mandate.

(Dkt. No. 109).

Case 1:03-cv-11992-PBS Document 148 Filed 11/14/22 Page 2 of 5

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the action, Johnson
continued to file numerous documents in this action.

In 2008,

the Court enjoined Johnson from filing any papers in the Court
without permission.

(Dkt. No. 135).

The Court warned Johnson

that failure to failure to comply with the order could result in
additional sanctions, including monetary sanctions.
In 2022, the Court was informed by its staff that Johnson
had attempted to file documents by email and that he represented
that he had sent copies of the same to Defendant’s counsel.
Thus, on September 16, 2022, the Court further ordered, inter
alia, that Johnson (1) “cease any and all communications
(including via email, telephone, or paper) with Defendant
(including Defendant’s counsel) concerning this action”; and
(2) “cease any and all communications (including via email,
telephone, or paper) with the Court and its employees concerning
this action.”
II.

(Dkt. No. 138).

United Request Order Further Enjoining Johnson
On October 17, 2022, United filed a notice in which it

states that Johnson has violated the September 16, 2022 order.
(Dkt. No. 142 (“Notice”)).

Defendant attached to the Notice

emails dated September 18, September 27, October 1, October 5,
October 8, October 11, 2022 from Johnson in which a United

2

Case 1:03-cv-11992-PBS Document 148 Filed 11/14/22 Page 3 of 5

employee or its counsel was a recipient. 1

Defendant “requests

this Court issue a further order enjoining Plaintiff from
contacting United employees and counsel for United” and “any
additional relief the Court deems appropriate.”

Notice at 3.

Although Johnson’s contact with United (as successor in
interest to Continental), its employees, and counsel for United
was in violation of the Notice, the Court will grant Defendant’s
request and to specify that Plaintiff is enjoined from
contacting United employees or counsel for United.
The Court notes that it is not clear when Johnson received
a copy of the September 16, 2022 order of enjoinment.

A copy of

this order was mailed to Johnson at his address of record, P.O.
Box 170151, Boston, MA 02117.

This was the address that Johnson

had provided on his most recent notice of change of address,
which he filed in 2010.

(Dkt. No. 137).

On October 3, over two

weeks after the Clerk mailed a copy of the September 16, 2022
order, the mailing was returned to the Court as undeliverable
(Dkt. No. 140).
Although Johnson had not filed a notice of change of
address, on October 5, 2022, the Clerk changed Johnson’s address

In addition, some of these emails appear to have been sent to
Court employees. This conduct violated the Court’s September
16, 2022 order.
3
1

Case 1:03-cv-11992-PBS Document 148 Filed 11/14/22 Page 4 of 5

on the docket to a return address that Johnson had written on an
envelope he used to mail documents to the Court, 189 Highland
Street, #1, Boston, MA

02119.

The same day, the Clerk placed

another copy of the September 16, 2022 order addressed to
Johnson at the Highland Street address in the Court’s mailroom.
It would have been picked up by the United States Postal Service
on October 5 or October 6, 2022.

The mailing has not been

returned to the Court as undeliverable.
The Court assumes that Johnson had not received a copy of
the September 16, 2022 order when he sent emails to United or
its counsel on September 18, September 27, October 1, or October
5, 2022, although United informed him of the order in a
September 22, 2022 cease and desist letter which it sent to
Johnson by electronic mail.

It not certain that Johnson had not

received a copy of the September 16, 2022 order when he sent the
emails dated October 8 and October 11, 2022.

In light of this

ambiguity, the Court declines to sanction Johnson.

4

Case 1:03-cv-11992-PBS Document 148 Filed 11/14/22 Page 5 of 5

III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that, in addition to
the filing restrictions the Court has already imposed, Johnson
is enjoined from contacting United employees and counsel for
United concerning the matters raised in this action.

The Court

warns Johnson that failure to comply with this order may result
in sanctions, including monetary sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5