USCA1 Opinion

February 9, 1996

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-1802

ANTHONY SOLIMINE,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Anthony Solimine on brief pro se.

________________

Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and David S. Mackey,

_______________
_______________
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellees.

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

There was

no abuse of

discretion in

the

district

court's

denial

Solimine's motion, filed

In granting

of

plaintiff-appellant

pursuant to Fed. R.

Solimine's motion to proceed

Anthony

Civ. P. 60(b).

in forma pauperis,

in December 1994, the district court expressly indicated that

it was not

ruling on

the sufficiency of

the complaints

state a claim for relief and that its dismissal of a

prior complaint was then pending in this court.

1995,

we

affirmed the

district

substantially identical cases,

were based

on

"an

Solimine v. F.B.I., Nos. 94-1873;

________
______

490

U.S. 319,

327

(1989).

meritless

similar

On March 24,

dismissal of

noting that those

indisputably

1995) (unpublished per curiam)

court's

to

two

complaints

legal

theory."

94-1995 (1st Cir. Mar. 24,

(quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

_______
________

The

district court's

action,

shortly

thereafter

Solimine's

on

request

April

to

6,

enlarge

1996,

the

that

time

to

defendants with the instant complaints that do

any

material respect

(1)

from his earlier-filed

denied

serve

the

not differ in

complaints and

(2) closed these consolidated cases was completely justified.

The government

Solimine

from

has

filing

filed a

further

motion

asking us

appeals against

it

to

bar

or

its

agencies relating to Solimine's 1991 hospitalizations and his

1991

visits to the offices

seeking their

premature in

of the F.B.I.

help in this matter.

the absence

The request is, at best,

of any district

-22

and U.S. Attorney

court prohibition

against Solimine filing any related action there and in light

of

the fact

against

that

it appears

the government

that

currently

Solimine has

pending in

the

no

cases

district

court and the instant appeal is the only one remaining before

us.

The motion is therefore denied.

Nonetheless, our present denial

Nonetheless
___________

renewal

by the

government

in the

is without prejudice to

future, should

Solimine

continue

to pursue repetitive,

the government or

appeal is the

review

its agencies.

sixth attempt

of a matter, which

without

basis

Morrill, No.
_______

91-1281 (1st

24,

we have consistently

See
___

United States,
______________

Solimine
________

Cir. Mar. 28,

1995) (unpublished

29, 1995)

that the

to seek

per

No.

95-1352

curiam

(unpublished per curiam).

per curiam);

(1st

Cir.

Solimine is

appellate

ruled to be

v. F.B.I. Agent
_____________

94-1995 (1st Cir.

disposing of

v. United States, No. 94-2250

______________

(unpublished

instant

1991) (unpublished

v. F.B.I., Nos. 94-1873;

______

appeals); Solimine
________

Aug.

We note

by Solimine

in law.

order); Solimine
________

Mar.

frivolous litigation against

two

(1st Cir.

and Solimine
________

Oct.

26,

warned that, in

v.

1995)

the

event of

future repetitive baseless litigation,

absence of any appropriately-tailored

injunction, sanctions,

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38, may be imposed.

Affirmed.
_________

-33

even in the

The

government's motion

Solimine from

filing

without prejudice.
__________________

for

order

further frivolous

enjoining

appeals

is

Anthony

denied
______

-44