Seguin v. Textron, Inc. et al
Filing
199
ORDER granting the following filing restriction motions: Documents #173 , #179 , and #180 ; and #195 (as filed at Document #91 in Seguin v. Suttell, CA 13-095). The permanent injunction is outlined on pages 6 through 8 of the attached Order. -- So Ordered by Judge Steven J McAuliffe (NH) on 4/25/2014. (Note: A copy of this Order was forwarded to Mary Seguin on 4/29/2014 via first-class mail to the last-known Texas and Canada addresses provided to the court by Ms. Seguin.) (Duhamel, John)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Mary Seguin
v.
Case No. 13-cv-12-SJM-LM
Opinion No. 2014 DNH 091
Textron, Inc., et al.
O R D E R
Before the court are motions filed by the Office of the
Rhode Island Attorney General in both of these consolidated
cases, on behalf of parties represented by that office, to
restrict plaintiff’s filing of future actions against state
officers, agencies, and employees.
Suttell Doc. No. 91.1
See Textron Doc. Nos. 179, 180.
has objected to the motions.
Suttell Doc. No. 102.
See Textron Doc. No. 173;
Seguin
See Textron Doc. No. 170, and
Co-defendants Adler, Pollock & Sheehan,
P.C. (“AP&S”) and McIntyre Tate, LLP (“McIntyre”) have joined in
the filing restriction motion in Textron, to the extent that the
restriction covers all future lawsuits concerning plaintiff’s
Rhode Island Family Court matters.
1
This consolidated action includes documents filed originally
in Seguin v. Suttell, No. 13-cv-095-JNL, a matter that has been
consolidated with the above-captioned action (“Textron”) and
statistically closed, as well as documents filed in Textron
before consolidation. Documents filed originally in Suttell are
cited here as “Suttell Doc. No. __”; documents filed originally
in Textron are cited as “Textron Doc. No. __.”
Background
These consolidated cases represent the third and fourth
federal actions filed by plaintiff Mary Seguin (“Seguin”) in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island,
concerning Rhode Island Family Court matters involving Seguin and
either Gero Meyersiek or Marc Seguin, the fathers of her two
daughters.
The court in the two prior federal cases filed by
Seguin, Seguin v. Bedrosian, No. 12-cv-614-JD-LM (D.R.I.)
(“Bedrosian”), and Seguin v. Chafee, No. 12-cv-708-JD (D.R.I.)
(“Chafee”), dismissed all of Seguin’s claims in those cases.
See
Bedrosian, 2013 WL 367722 (D.R.I. Jan. 30, 2013), aff’d, No. 131242 (1st Cir. Nov. 1, 2013); Chafee, 2012 WL 6553621, at *7
(D.R.I. Dec. 14, 2012), reconsideration denied, 2013 WL 124301
(D.R.I. Jan. 9, 2013), aff’d, No. 13-1241 (1st Cir. Nov. 1,
2013).
In a separate order this date, this court granted
defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims in these consolidated
cases, upon finding, among other things, that Seguin’s claims
were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
estoppel, based on rulings issued in Bedrosian and Chafee.
This court’s order granting those motions to dismiss
terminates a temporary filing restriction placed upon Seguin in
these consolidated cases, generally preventing her from filing
documents in these cases while the motions to dismiss remained
pending.
See Suttell Doc. No. 108; Textron Doc. No. 174.
2
In
issuing that temporary filing restriction, the court adopted then
Magistrate Judge McCafferty’s report and recommendation (see
Suttell Doc. No. 70; Textron Doc. No. 158), detailing incidents
of Seguin’s harassing and abusive litigation tactics that had
wasted the court’s and parties’ resources.
See Suttell Doc. No.
108; Textron Doc. No. 174.
Discussion
I.
Recusal
The state defendants, in their motions, seek an order
permanently enjoining Seguin from filing future actions in this
court against any state agencies or employees, in light of her
history of vexatious litigation asserting the same claims.
AP&S
and McIntyre have joined that motion, to the extent that they
seek to enjoin the filing of any lawsuits arising out of Seguin’s
Family Court matters.
As a preliminary matter, Seguin asserts that this court
should be disqualified from ruling on those motions because she
has filed a judicial misconduct complaint against the judges
assigned to this case.
Seguin has requested recusal of the New
Hampshire judges assigned to these cases a number of times in
each case for similar reasons, and each of those motions has been
denied.
Nos. 157.
See, e.g., Suttell Doc. Nos. 19 and 106; Textron Doc.
Nothing in the record warrants reconsideration of
3
those rulings, and nothing requires this court to hold the
pending motions in abeyance at this time.
II.
Filing Restriction
A.
Authority
“Federal courts plainly possess discretionary powers to
regulate the conduct of abusive litigants.”
F.2d 32, 34 (1st Cir. 1993).
Cok v. Fam. Ct., 985
This power encompasses the ability
to enjoin a pro se party from filing frivolous and vexatious
pleadings.
See United States v. Gomez-Rosario, 418 F.3d 90, 101
(1st Cir. 2005).
Where a litigant has demonstrated a propensity
to file repeated suits, involving the same or similar claims of a
frivolous or vexatious nature, a bar on further filings is
appropriate.
Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d 399, 409 (1st
Cir. 1985) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds by Stevens v.
Dep’t of Treasury, 500 U.S. 1 (1991).
A filing ban should occur only where clearly indicated by
the record in a particular case, including, for example, a
history of repetitive frivolous filings, and only after the
plaintiff has been warned that filing restrictions are
contemplated.
Cok, 985 F.2d at 35.
An injunction on the ability
of a plaintiff to file lawsuits must be tailored to the specific
circumstances presented, particularly when issued against a pro
se plaintiff.
Id. at 34-35.
4
B.
Factors
Seguin has a well-documented history of filing repetitive
claims arising out of her Family Court matters, naming a cast of
state defendants.
The court in Chafee and Bedrosian dismissed
such claims, and the First Circuit affirmed those decisions.
The
state superior court in Providence County also rejected similar
claims in Seguin’s failed attempt to collaterally challenge
Family Court orders in that court.
See Suttell Doc. No. 86-1, at
80-89 (Seguin v. Bedrosian, No. 2012-0124 (R.I. Super. Ct.,
Providence Cnty.) (July 2012 bench ruling and August 2012 order
granting motion to dismiss)).
Seguin has continued to file new cases relating to and
arising out of her Family Court proceedings, repeating the same
or very similar claims, and naming many of the same defendants.
Seguin filed these cases after the district court in Chafee and
Bedrosian made it clear that no further district court
consideration of her claims in those cases was warranted.
And
one week after the state defendants here, on October 29, 2013,
filed their motion for a permanent filing restriction seeking to
enjoin future filings against the state in the District of Rhode
Island, see Suttell Doc. No. 91, Seguin joined a group of
plaintiffs filing a complaint in the District of Massachusetts,
asserting claims similar to those asserted in these consolidated
cases, naming a familiar set of state judges and officers as
5
defendants, and adding defendants including the government
attorneys who have appeared in this court to represent the state
defendants.
See Kufner v. Suttell, No. 1:13-cv-12864-DJC (D.
Mass. complaint filed Nov. 6, 2013).
Adverse judgments, the imposition of a temporary filing
restriction in these consolidated cases, and defendants’ motion
for a permanent filing restriction have all failed to deter
Seguin from filing further actions.
The relative frequency of
Seguin’s initiation of new actions, her recitation of the same
claims in the face of adverse rulings, and the generally
vituperative and sometimes personal nature of her arguments in
these cases suggests a passion for relitigating Family Court
matters bordering on a mania.
This court concludes that it must
specifically enjoin Seguin from engaging in further vexatious
litigation, employing the identity of the defendants and the
general subject matter of the claims as a narrowly-tailored
screen appropriate for Seguin’s circumstances.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the filing
restriction motions (Textron Doc. Nos. 173, 179, 180; Suttell
Doc. No. 91), and issues the following permanent injunction:
(1)
Mary Seguin is permanently enjoined and restrained from
commencing or litigating - without prior leave of the
court - any action in the United States District Court
for the District of Rhode Island, involving matters
6
arising out of Rhode Island Family Court proceedings
and actions filed by Seguin challenging and/or
appealing orders issued in those Family Court
proceedings (hereinafter “Rhode Island State Court
Proceedings”), including specifically:
(a)
(b)
Meyersiek v. Seguin, No. K2001-0521M
(R.I. Fam. Ct., Kent Cnty.);
(c)
Meyersiek v. Seguin, No. K2004-0077A
(R.I. Fam. Ct., Kent Cnty.);
(d)
Meyersiek v. Seguin, No. P2011-0026A
(R.I. Fam. Ct., Providence Cnty.);
(e)
Seguin v. Seguin, No. SU-2010-220-M.P.
(R.I.); and
(f)
(2)
Seguin v. Seguin, No. K2001-0503 (R.I. Fam.
Ct., Kent Cnty.);
Seguin v. Bedrosian, No. 2012-0124
(R.I. Super. Ct., Providence Cnty.).
Mary Seguin must seek leave of court before she files a
complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island, arising out of the Rhode
Island State Court Proceedings, against:
(a)
the Rhode Island Family Court, the Rhode
Island Supreme Court, or any current or
former Rhode Island judge, justice, or courtappointed mediator or guardian ad litem,
including Chief Justice Paul Suttell; Family
Court Chief Judge Haiganush Bedrosian; Family
Court Associate Judges John E. McCann III,
Stephen J. Capineri, and Michael B. Forte;
the Estate of Family Court Associate Judge
Gilbert Rocha; and Family Court
mediator/guardian ad litem Lori Giarrusso;
(b)
the Rhode Island Governor’s Office and/or
Governor Lincoln Chafee;
(c)
the Rhode Island Executive Office of Health
and Human Services and/or Health and Human
Services Secretary Steven M. Constantino;
7
(d)
the Rhode Island Child Support Office,
Director Sharon A. Santilli, and/or Attorney
Priscilla Glucksman; and
(e)
the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office
and/or Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin.
(3)
This court will not grant leave for Mary Seguin to file
a complaint naming any of those parties as defendants,
or otherwise asserting claims arising out of the Rhode
Island State Court Proceedings, unless she files the
proposed complaint, together with an affidavit
certifying in good faith that the proposed complaint
asserts novel claims that: (a) have not previously been
raised in this court; and (b) do not arise out of
matters previously litigated in this court.
(4)
Mary Seguin must pay the filing fee or file an in forma
pauperis application at the time she seeks leave of
court, before the court will determine whether she can
file the proposed complaint.
(5)
Any filing or proposed complaint presented to the
clerk’s office by Mary Seguin against any defendant
listed in Paragraph (2)(a)-(e) above, and/or arising
out of the Rhode Island State Court Proceedings, will
be assigned to a magistrate judge or district judge for
screening prior to filing. The assigned judicial
officer shall determine whether the filing or proposed
complaint complies with the terms of this injunction.
If it does, the complaint will be docketed. If the
filing violates the injunction, the court will reject
the filing and return the filing fee, if a filing fee
has been received.
(6)
This injunction is intended to prevent Seguin from
instituting any further actions against the listed
defendants and/or relating to the Rhode Island State
Court Proceedings, without first satisfying a
magistrate judge or district judge that the complaint
does not arise out of matters that have already been
litigated or otherwise decided by this court. This
injunction does not prevent Mary Seguin from filing a
notice of appeal, from defending herself in any
lawsuit, or from pursuing any meritorious claims which
have arisen or may arise in the future against any
defendant, which may be appropriately filed in this
court.
8
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
April 25, 2014
cc:
Mary Seguin, pro se
Rebecca T. Partington, Esq.
Susan E. Urso, Esq.
Mark W. Freel, Esq.
Joseph Avanzato, Esq.
Leslie D. Parker, Esq.
Gordon P. Cleary, Esq.
SJM:nmd
9
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?