FENNICK v. KITTREDGE et al

Filing 13

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: Plaintiff's "Emergency Motion to Waive Judicial Immunity against the Justices from the Norfolk Superior Court Allowing Future Pretrial Hearing in U.S. Court Amending State of Massachu setts" (Docket No. 11) is DENIED with prejudice; Plaintiff's Letter (Docket No. 10) requesting that documents be transferred to the Dedham Superior Court is DENIED; Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint of Injunction (filed September 10 , 2012) is STRICKEN and is not permitted to be opened as a new case on the Court's dockets or to serve as a basis to reopen any closed civil action in this Court; Plaintiff's "Emergency Motion to Suspend the Retirement of Judge Mark Wo lf in Compliance to the Rules of the United States Federal Court" (filed October 18, 2012) is DENIED with prejudice; Plaintiff's request for all papers accompanying the transfer of his lawsuit from the District of Columbia to this Court, is DENIED; and Plaintiff's Request to File a New Civil Action: Fennick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts and U.S. House of Representatives (filed December 21, 2012) is DENIED, and all requests for relief contained therein are DENIED; and Plaintiff& #039;s Request to File a New Civil Action: Fennick v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (filed January 28, 2013) is DENIED, and all requests for relief contained therein are DENIED; All of Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED; Plaintiff's "Emergency Motion for Speedy Trial Against Federal Bureau of Investigations Amending Lisa White to Civil Action" is DENIED; Plaintiff's Letter of March 14, 2013 seeking to file a criminal application is DE NIED; Plaintiff's "Emergency Motion to Remove Above Docketed Case From the Internet/Websearch Engines All In Compliance To The Rules Of The United States District Court" (Docket No. 12) is DENIED;Plaintiff is PROHIBITED from prosecutin g his purported complaint against List White and the FBI, entitled "Amending Complaint to Remove Sealed Information Internet Search Engines in Violation of the Privacy Protection Rights in Compliance to the Rules Afforded to the United States Di strict Court House;"The Order Enjoining plaintiff is FURTHER MODIFIED as follows: Fennick is PROHIBITED from filing any further pleadings pro se, seeking to assert claims in any form against Trooper Staco, the state courts, or state judges or an y other parties that relate to Trooper Staco's action with respect to Fennick's CORI records. Fennick may not assert claims of criminal or civil conspiracy, treason, or any other claims against Trooper Staco and the Commonwealth of Massach usetts (including its agencies or instrumentalities, or its employees or state judges), or against the United States, United States Congressmen, the United States House of Representatives, the FBI, or other federal employees, including federal judges , unless he first attaches to his complaint or other pleading an affidavit signed by a duly licensed attorney admitted to practice law in the District of Massachusetts averring that the attorney has reviewed the complaint in its entirety and, upon re view, has a good-faith belief that (1) the proposed complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, (2) is not barred by issue or claim preclusion, and (3) is not repetitive of prior lawsuits filed by Fennick with this Court. This pre-fili ng injunction does not prevent Fennick from defending himself in a lawsuit or filing a Notice of Appeal. Any motion or other pleading that violates this Order shall be docketed by the Clerk's Office and immediately terminated by the Clerk's Office, with no other action taken on the motion or other pleading. The prior Order with respect to transferred actions remains in effect; and The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from the rulings contained in this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith. (PSSA, 1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
KEVIN FENNICK,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-10866-DPW

JOSEPH T. KITTREDGE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
September 16, 2013
I.

INTRODUCTION
On May 17, 2012, I issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No.

5) dismissing plaintiff Kevin Fennick’s self-prepared complaint
upon the finding that Fennick, an enjoined litigant, had engaged
in frivolous, abusive, malicious and/or vexatious litigation
practices, and that he failed to state non-frivolous claims in
this action.1
On August 14, 2012, Fennick filed two motions seeking to
reopen this action and to amend the complaint to add additional
parties.

On August 17, 2012, I issued a Memorandum and Order

(Docket No. 9) denying both motions, finding that his attempt to
reopen this action was yet another frivolous, abusive, vexatious,
and malicious pleading.

1

I also certified that any appeal of the

Fennick’s litigation history involving claims against
Trooper Staco and his counsel, as well as Massachusetts state
courts and state court judges is extensive. These claims have
been addressed extensively by this Court in this and other cases,
and thus need not be reiterated here. See, e.g., Fennick v.
Sanders, et al., C.A. 12-10866-DPW; Fennick v. Staco, et al.,
C.A. 07-11096-MLW. In brief, Fennick’s claims stem from alleged
improper discovery of his CORI records and resulting criminal and
civil litigation in the Massachusetts courts.

Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith.
Undeterred, on August 31, 2012, Fennick filed a motion
entitled “Emergency Motion to Waive Judicial Immunity against the
Justices from the Norfolk Superior Court Allowing Future Pretrial
Hearing in U.S. Court Amending State of Massachusetts.” (Docket
No. 11).

In that motion, he requests that both judicial immunity

and sovereign immunity be waived so that he may serve summonses
on the judges previously named in his lawsuit and amend his
complaint to include the Quincy District Court as a defendant.
Additionally, the same day, Fennick filed a Letter (Docket
No. 10) requesting that documents be transferred to the Dedham
Superior Court.
Thereafter, on September 10, 2012, Fennick filed a pleading
entitled “Second Amended Complaint of Injunction” and lists the
defendant as “The State of Massachusetts Norfolk County.”
The pleading is virtually incoherent.

Id.

From what can be gleaned,

he, once again, disputes the state court rulings dismissing his
civil action.

He also contends that judicial immunity does not

apply when a judge commits an intentional tort, even if the tort
occurs in the courthouse.

Further, he

seeks to file a complaint

to add Judge Wolf and me as a party to his suit for declining to
grant declaratory relief to him.

He also seeks to include the

Vice President of the United States and the U.S. House of
Representatives as parties.

He asserts his action is against the

2

United States for $7 billion in damages.
On or about October 18, 2012, Fennick filed an “Emergency
Motion to Suspend the Retirement of Judge Mark Wolf in Compliance
to the Rules of the United States Federal Court.”

He also filed

a letter asking the Court to forward to him all papers that
accompanied the transfer of his civil action from the District of
Columbia to this Court.
Thereafter, on December 21, 2012, Fennick filed a new
complaint, seeking permission to file by alleging he has filed it
in good faith.

He seeks my recusal as well as Judge Wolf’s.

Essentially, in this proposed complaint, Fennick alleges the
improper distribution of sealed court records on the internet, in
violation of his fourth amendment rights.

The complaint is

against the State of Massachusetts and the U.S. House of
Representatives.

He reiterates his claims against Trooper Staco

for unlawfully obtaining his CORI records, and reiterates his
unsuccessful litigation attempts in state court, alleging the
state court judges wrongfully dismissed his lawsuit.

He again

takes issue with this Court’s dismissals of his claims based on
absolute judicial immunity.

He now claims the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts makes it possible for any citizen to obtain his
court file, and that placing these records over the internet
makes it easier for lawyers to retrieve his confidential
information in the course of defending their clients.

In short,

he does not want the general public to be able to see documents
3

from his lawsuits.

He claims that he has been wronged by the

Commonwealth and by the House of Representatives because of this
public disclosure, and seeks $753 million in damages.

He also

seeks to have all the information on the internet concerning this
litigation removed, contending it is sealed by a criminal court,
although he does not provide details of this assertions.
Along with his proposed new complaint against the State of
Massachusetts and the U.S. House of Representatives, Fennick
filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.
On January 28, 2013, Fennick filed yet another proposed new
complaint against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, alleging the failure of the
FBI to investigate is part of a conspiracy to protect Trooper
Staco and the State Police.

Along with the proposed complaint,

Fennick filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.
On February 21, 2013, Fennick filed a pleading entitled
“Amending Complaint to Remove Sealed Information Internet Search
Engines in Violation of the Privacy Protection Rights in
Compliance to the Rules Afforded to the United States District
Court House.”

He names as defendants Lisa White and the FBI

Agency, Inc.
On February 22, 2013, Fennick filed an “Emergency Motion for
Speedy Trial Against Federal Bureau of Investigations Amending
Lisa White to Civil Action.”

4

On March 14, 2013, Fennick filed a letter to this Court
seeking to have the federal court issue a criminal application to
him for filing, following the state court procedures.

He seeks

to file a complaint against the State Department based on public
corruption and treason against the United States.

He lists the

duties of the United States Marshal, the FBI, the Attorney
General, and alleges that his constitutional rights have been
violated by not being able to bring his lawsuit against the state
police officer (i.e., Trooper Staco), since his prior suits in
state court have been dismissed with prejudice.
On September 10, 2013, Fennick filed an “Emergency Motion to
Remove Above Docketed Case From the Internet/Websearch Engines
All In Compliance To The Rules Of The United States District
Court” (Docket No. 12).

He seeks to vacate the Order enjoining

suits absent prior permission of a judge and to remove all docket
entries in this action having to do with Trooper John Staco’s
information about him, on the grounds that the East Boston
District Court sealed the Trooper’s allegations against Fennick
after he was acquitted.

He asserts his right to privacy and is

concerned that future employers may learn about this matter.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

The Request for Transfer of Court Documents

First, with respect to the request for transfer of court
documents to the Dedham Superior Court, Fennick’s request is

5

DENIED as completely unfounded.

Should Fennick seek to have

copies of records from this Court for filing in another court, he
may request that copies be made by the Clerk’s Office provided he
pays the standard copying and service fees.
B.

The Motion to Waive Judicial Immunity

Next, with respect to Fennick’s Motion to Waive Judicial
Immunity, it is clear that the Order prohibiting him from
relitigating his previously-dismissed claims have been
unavailing.

He consistently ignores the directives of this Court

and persists on renewing his dismissed claims despite the Order
enjoining him from doing so.

See Fennick v. Saunders, et al.,

Civil Action No. 09-10377-MLW (Memorandum and Order (Docket No.
6)(May 27, 2009)).2

Fennick’s arguments regarding the lack of

judicial immunity are utterly without merit.

Accordingly, his

2

That Order provided that:

Plaintiff is ENJOINED from attempting to relitigate
this action, or any of the issues raised or which could
have been raised in this action, either directly or
indirectly, and from instituting in this Court any
other lawsuit absent prior permission of a judicial
officer of this Court, upon a motion and good cause
shown. A copy of this Memorandum and Order shall be
submitted along with any Motion for Leave to Institute
Lawsuit or any other similar pleading which may be
filed by Fennick. The Clerk is directed to return any
non-complying pleading to Fennick, and no action shall
be taken by the Court with respect to any document that
does not strictly comply with this Order.
Fennick v. Saunders, et al., Civil Action No. 09-10377-MLW
(Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 6).
6

Motion to Waive Judicial Immunity (Docket No. 11) is DENIED with
prejudice.
C.

The Second Amended Complaint of Injunction

Fennick’s attempt to file another lawsuit in this Court
challenging the rulings of the state court judges as well as this
Court’s rulings, on the grounds of the lack of judicial immunity,
also are without merit and violate Judge Wolf’s Order enjoining
him.
Accordingly, I will STRIKE the Second Amended Complaint of
Injunction and will not permit the complaint to be opened as a
new case in this Court, or to serve as a basis for reopening any
closed civil action dismissed by this Court.
D.

The Emergency Motion to Suspend the Retirement of Judge
Mark Wolf

As an initial matter, it is unclear what Fennick seeks
through his emergency motion to suspend Judge Wolf’s scheduled
retirement.3

His pleading indicates the defendants to be Judge

Wolf and myself.
Fennick again asserts that his prior lawsuits were dismissed
by Judge Wolf and me erroneously, contending, inter alia, that
sovereign immunity did not bar his cases.

3

He contends that it is

It bears noting that when Judge Wolf announced his
intention to take “senior status” as a Senior District Judge, he
did not announce his intention to retire from the District Court.
On January 1, 2013, Judge Wolf took senior status but remains a
judicial officer of this Court.
7

ironic that Judge Wolf’s announcement of his impending retirement
did not take place until after Fennick filed an amended lawsuit
in this court.

He states that “Judge Wolf simply might be in

search of protecting his retirement package and to evade this
Civil suit against him.”

Motion at ¶ 4.

Fennick’s motion is wholly without merit and is frivolous.
Accordingly, his “Emergency Motion to Suspend the Retirement of
Judge Mark Wolf in Compliance to the Rules of the United States
Federal Court” is DENIED with prejudice.
E.

The Request for All Papers in Transferred Action

To the extent Fennick seeks copies of all papers
accompanying the transfer of his lawsuit from the District of
Columbia to this Court, the request is DENIED.
As with his request for documents to be transferred to the
Dedham Superior Court, Fennick is not entitled to such services
by the Clerk.

Should Fennick seek to have copies of records from

this Court, he may request that copies be made by the Clerk’s
Office provided he pays the standard copying and service fees.
F.

The Request for Permission to File New Lawsuit: Fennick
v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts and U.S. House of
Representatives

Fennick’s attempt to file a lawsuit against the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and the House of Representatives based on his
allegations that his constitutional rights have been violated
because information from his lawsuits are available to the public

8

through the internet is futile.

His stated cause of action has

no legal or factual merit.
Briefly, his claims for monetary damages are not cognizable
because the claims fail to comport with the pleading requirements
of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the State and
the House of Representatives are not liable under a respondeat
superior theory of liability, and because the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts is entitled to sovereign immunity under these
circumstances and the House of Representatives is entitled to
legislative immunity.
As an additional matter, Fennick’s factual premise that
sealed court records are available through the internet is not
credible.

He fails to identify with specificity the sealed

documents to which he refers, and, in any event, this Court’s
electronic docket does not contain sealed records in any of his
federal civil cases.

There is no order from any judge of this

Court in connection with a criminal case that requires Fennick’s
documents to be sealed.

Moreover, to the extent that Fennick is

complaining that the general public has access to the records in
his cases and that this undermines his reputation, this
allegation does not have constitutional implications.
are public events.

“Lawsuits

Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th

Cir. 2000) citing Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir.
1992).

“[T]he public has an important interest in access to

9

legal proceedings...”

Id.

In light of the above, I find Fennick has not shown
sufficiently any basis for this Court to relieve him from the
Order of Enjoinment to permit him to pursue further civil
litigation.

Accordingly, I will DENY Fennick’s Request to File a

New Lawsuit, and will DENY any claims for relief contained
therein.

I will also DENY Fennick’s Motion for Leave to Proceed

in forma pauperis.
G.

The Proposed New Lawsuit: Fennick v. Federal Bureau of
Investigation

Fennick’s proposed complaint asserts inappropriate behavior
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including its Superior
Court judges, by the dismissal of his cases against Trooper Staco
and the State Police.

He contends that those dismissals indicate

that the State Department Attorney General committed civil
conspiracy in order to protect John Staco and the State Police.
Fennick claims that he twice reported this matter to the FBI
after the U.S. Marshal advised him of proper jurisdiction,
requesting an investigation.
were ignored.

He alleges his requests to the FBI

He alleges that the FBI failed to investigate in

order to protect members of the Commonwealth.

He also alleges

this conspiracy involved multiple persons in the State
Department.
He seeks permission to file this action, and the recusal of
both Judge Wolf and myself.

He seeks restitution.
10

He also seeks

to have a “lift” of sovereign immunity against the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, and a conference where the FBI explains to the
court its reasons for failing to investigate.
Attached to his complaint is, inter alia, a copy of a
Memorandum of Decision and Order issued by Kenneth J. Fishman,
Regional Administrative Justice, dated April 19, 2012, with
respect to Fennick v. Connors, Jr., et al., Norfolk Superior
Court Civil Action No. 2012-272.

That memorandum was in response

to Fennick’s “Complaint Against Judicial Misconduct of Dismissal
All in the Compliance to the Superior Court Rules 9A.”

The

memorandum noted that, in addition to that complaint, Fennick had
filed eight prior actions in the Norfolk County Superior Court,
and five actions in the Suffolk Superior Court.

These suits

asserted claims against the U.S. House of Representatives,
Attorney Joseph Kittredge and others; Justice Janet Sanders,
Margaret Rubino, and others; Suzanne Caravaggio, John Staco,
Justice Brady and others.

Judge Fishman found that “The

plaintiff has shown a pattern of simply seeking to file a new
duplicative action upon the dismissal or rejection of every other
action, with no effort or ability to provide clarity in his
pleadings or raise an identifiable cause of action.”
of Decision and Order at 2.

Memorandum

Judge Fishman concluded that Fennick

was a vexatious litigant by filing frivolous, incomprehensible
and unnecessary actions, without justification.

11

Accordingly,

Fennick was barred from filing, in the Superior Court Department
of the Massachusetts Trial Court, any future claims and
pleadings, complaints, motions to amend, or otherwise, unless he
received leave of court to file after good cause shown.
I find that the proposed new complaint presents no plausible
claims and that Fennick has not shown sufficiently any basis for
relief from the Order of Enjoinment.

Indeed, this complaint is

yet another frivolous, malicious, and vexatious filing by him.
Accordingly, I will DENY Fennick’s Request to File a New
Lawsuit (contained in the body of the proposed complaint), and
will DENY any claims for relief contained therein.

I will also

DENY Fennick’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.4
H.

The “Amending Complaint to Remove Sealed Information
Internet Search Engines in Violation of the Privacy
Protection Rights in Compliance to the Rules Afforded
to the United States District Court House”

It appears that Fennick is attempting to institute another
lawsuit in his Amending Complaint.

He contends, inter alia, that

Lisa White, (of the U.S. Court of Appeals Library) has hindered
and harassed him with respect to the use of the library.

He

fails, however, to set forth any underlying factual details in
support, and the allegations fail to set forth plausible claims
in accordance with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the

4

In order to maintain a public record of Fennick’s filings,
the Clerk is directed to docket the proposed complaints, motions,
and exhibits referenced herein as a separate entry noting the
documents were filed without leave of court.
12

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Additionally, Fennick states that Trooper John Staco is
believed to know Lisa White and her family.

He again reiterates

his allegations against Trooper Staco, and the lawsuits he has
filed in the state court.
Next, he contends that his cases were placed on the internet
search engines belonging to Yahoo, AOL, Google, and others.

He

takes issue with the fact that a user who types in his name would
be able to obtain sealed information.

He submits that the only

time this information should be public is if it involved a felony
conviction or bankruptcy issue.
For all the reasons set forth herein, I find no good cause
to be shown to permit Fennick to file his pleading to institute a
new civil action against Lisa White or the FBI.
Accordingly, Fennick may not pursue his claims contained in
the “Amending Complaint to Remove Sealed Information Internet
Search Engines in Violation of the Privacy Protection Rights in
Compliance to the Rules Afforded to the United States District
Court House.”
I.

The “Emergency Motion for Speedy Trial Against Federal
Bureau of Investigations Amending Lisa White to Civil
Action”

Fennick’s one-page Emergency Motion simply alleges
harassment and hindrance in his efforts to use law library.
does not seek any specific relief.

13

It

For all the reasons set forth

in this Memorandum and Order, Fennick’s “Emergency Motion for
Speedy Trial Against Federal Bureau of Investigations Amending
Lisa White to Civil Action” is DENIED as unfounded.
J.

The Letter Seeking a Criminal Application

As noted above, Fennick seeks criminal prosecution against
the State Department.

He claims the state has a mechanism in

place for a private citizen to file a criminal complaint and have
it heard by a clerk-magistrate, and asserts that the federal
court should have the same mechanism.
Notwithstanding Fennick’s assertions, federal courts do not
have jurisdiction over criminal cases unless they are prosecuted
by the United States Attorney.

See e.g., United States v. Panza,

381 F. Supp. 1133, 1138 (W.D. Pa. 1974) (“[T]here is a long line
of cases holding that federal courts have no jurisdiction over
cases prosecuted in the name of the United States unless they are
prosecuted by the United States Attorney.”); Pugach v. Klein, 193
F. Supp. 630, 633-635 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)(power to enforce criminal
law vested in executive branch by Constitution; no residual power
in private citizens to enforce law when United States Attorney
does not prosecute).
Moreover, section 547 of title 28 states that “[e]xcept as
otherwise provided by law, each United States attorney, within
his district, shall (1) prosecute all offenses against the United
States.”

28 U.S.C. § 547 (1).

Here, Fennick does not have

14

standing to bring a criminal complaint because no statute
authorizes him to do so.

Kennan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611

(1st Cir. 1964) (per curiam); accord Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d
1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (stating that only the United
States as prosecutor can bring a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §§
241-242); Stone v. Warfield, 184 F.R.D. 553, 555 (D. Md. 1999)
(stating that individual citizens have no private right of action
to institute federal criminal prosecutions); see Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (a private citizen lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another); 28 U.S.C. § 516 (conduct of litigation
in which the United States is a party is reserved to officers of
the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney
General).
Accordingly, I will DENY any relief sought be Fennick in his
March 14, 2013 letter.
K.

The “Emergency Motion to Remove Above Docketed Case
From the Internet/Websearch Engines All In Compliance
To The Rules Of The United States District Court”

Fennick’s “Emergency Motion to Remove Above Docketed Case
From the Internet/Websearch Engines All In Compliance To The
Rules Of The United States District Court” (Docket No. 12) seeks
the same type of relief as in his previously-submitted “Amending
Complaint to Remove Sealed Information Internet Search Engines in
Violation of the Privacy Protection Rights in Compliance to the

15

Rules Afforded to the United States District Court House.”

I

will DENY Fennick’s emergency motion because he has not
demonstrated good cause for the relief requested.

Generally,

cases filed in this court are a matter of public record because
lawsuits are public events.
1246 (10th Cir. 2000).

See Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244,

I see no basis to seal documents in this

case, which has been closed since May 17, 2012.
L.

Order Further Enjoining Fennick

At this juncture, it is clear that Fennick’s contumacious
behavior warrants further sanctions in order to ensure that
scarce judicial resources do not continue to be wasted by
diversion to the frivolous and vexatious claims he continues to
raise.

I previously modified the Order of Enjoinment in this

case as follows:
In order to ensure that Fennick does not continue to
waste the scarce judicial resources of the court, it is
hereby Ordered as follows. Upon receipt of any civil
action filed by Fennick in another District and
subsequently ordered transferred to this District, the
Clerks Office is directed to open the matter as a
transferred action, and immediately close the action
noting on the docket that the transferred action is
automatically dismissed in view of the Order Enjoining
Fennick. Should Fennick seek to re-open the closed
transferred action, he must file a Motion to Reopen and
demonstrate good cause, under the penalties of perjury,
why the action should be reopened.
Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 5 at 6).
In light of the above, I will FURTHER MODIFY the Enjoining
Order as follows:

16

Fennick is PROHIBITED from filing any further pleadings
pro se, seeking to assert claims in any form against
Trooper Staco, the state courts, or state judges or any
other parties that relate to Trooper Staco’s action
with respect to Fennick’s CORI records. Fennick may
not assert claims of criminal or civil conspiracy,
treason, or any other claims against Trooper Staco and
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (including its
agencies or instrumentalities, or its employees or
state judges), or against the United States, United
States Congressmen, the United States House of
Representatives, the FBI, or other federal employees,
including federal judges, unless he first attaches to
his complaint or other pleading an affidavit signed by
a duly licensed attorney admitted to practice law in
the District of Massachusetts averring that the
attorney has reviewed the complaint in its entirely
and, upon review, has a good-faith belief that (1) the
proposed complaint states a claim upon which relief may
be granted, (2) is not barred by issue or claim
preclusion, and (3) is not repetitive of prior lawsuits
filed by Fennick with this Court. This pre-filing
injunction does not prevent Fennick from defending
himself in a lawsuit or filing a Notice of Appeal. Any
motion or other pleading that violates this Order shall
be docketed by the Clerk’s Office and immediately
terminated by the Clerk’s Office, with no other action
taken on the motion or other pleading. The prior Order
with respect to transferred actions remains in effect.5
Fennick is WARNED that violation of this Modified Enjoinment
Order may result in the imposition of severe sanctions, which may
include the imposition of monetary sanctions and/or the
institution of contempt proceedings.

5

See Sullivan v. North Carolina, 2012 WL 3762445, at *6
(E.D.N.C.)(August 29, 2012)(imposing similar sanction). The
purpose of the modification is to obtain screening of Fennick’s
submission by a legal professional before Fennick is permitted to
claim the Court’s scarce resources in addressing his submissions.
17

M.

Certification That Any Appeal Would Not Be Taken in
Good Faith

Finally, as I did in connection with my prior Memorandum and
Order, I hereby CERTIFY that any appeal of the rulings contained
in this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith.
His filings are vexatious and abusive; no reasonable person would
suppose that any of Fennick’s arguments and claims have legal
merit.
III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that:

1.

Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Waive Judicial Immunity
against the Justices from the Norfolk Superior Court
Allowing Future Pretrial Hearing in U.S. Court Amending
State of Massachusetts.” (Docket No. 11) is DENIED with
prejudice;

2.

Plaintiff’s Letter (Docket No. 10) requesting that documents
be transferred to the Dedham Superior Court is DENIED;

3.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint of Injunction (filed
September 10, 2012) is STRICKEN and is not permitted to be
opened as a new case on the Court’s dockets or to serve as a
basis to reopen any closed civil action in this Court;

4.

Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Suspend the Retirement of
Judge Mark Wolf in Compliance to the Rules of the United
States Federal Court” (filed October 18, 2012) is DENIED
with prejudice;

5.

Plaintiff’s request for all papers accompanying the transfer
of his lawsuit from the District of Columbia to this Court,
is DENIED; and

6.

Plaintiff’s Request to File a New Civil Action: Fennick v.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and U.S. House of
Representatives (filed December 21, 2012) is DENIED, and all
requests for relief contained therein are DENIED; and

7.

Plaintiff’s Request to File a New Civil Action: Fennick v.
18

Federal Bureau of Investigation (filed January 28, 2013) is
DENIED, and all requests for relief contained therein are
DENIED;
8.

All of Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis are DENIED;

9.

Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion for Speedy Trial Against
Federal Bureau of Investigations Amending Lisa White to
Civil Action” is DENIED;

10.

Plaintiff’s Letter of March 14, 2013 seeking to file a
criminal application is DENIED;

11.

Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Remove Above Docketed Case
From the Internet/Websearch Engines All In Compliance To The
Rules Of The United States District Court” (Docket No. 12)
is DENIED;

12.

Plaintiff is PROHIBITED from prosecuting his purported
complaint against List White and the FBI, entitled “Amending
Complaint to Remove Sealed Information Internet Search
Engines in Violation of the Privacy Protection Rights in
Compliance to the Rules Afforded to the United States
District Court House;”

13.

The Order Enjoining plaintiff is FURTHER MODIFIED as
follows:
Fennick is PROHIBITED from filing any further pleadings
pro se, seeking to assert claims in any form against
Trooper Staco, the state courts, or state judges or any
other parties that relate to Trooper Staco’s action
with respect to Fennick’s CORI records. Fennick may
not assert claims of criminal or civil conspiracy,
treason, or any other claims against Trooper Staco and
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (including its
agencies or instrumentalities, or its employees or
state judges), or against the United States, United
States Congressmen, the United States House of
Representatives, the FBI, or other federal employees,
including federal judges, unless he first attaches to
his complaint or other pleading an affidavit signed by
a duly licensed attorney admitted to practice law in
the District of Massachusetts averring that the
attorney has reviewed the complaint in its entirely
and, upon review, has a good-faith belief that (1) the
proposed complaint states a claim upon which relief may
19

be granted, (2) is not barred by issue or claim
preclusion, and (3) is not repetitive of prior lawsuits
filed by Fennick with this Court. This pre-filing
injunction does not prevent Fennick from defending
himself in a lawsuit or filing a Notice of Appeal.
Any motion or other pleading that violates this Order shall
be docketed by the Clerk’s Office and immediately terminated
by the Clerk’s Office, with no other action taken on the
motion or other pleading. The prior Order with respect to
transferred actions remains in effect; and
14.

The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from the rulings
contained in this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in
good faith.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20