United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. STEARNS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff shall demonstrate good
cause why he should not be enjoined from filing further
actions in this Court absent permission from a district
April 7, 2016, Michael John Mazzeo (also identified as Mazzeo
Unum), filed a pro se complaint with an Application
to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees and
Costs. See Docket. At that time, the action was randomly
assigned to Magistrate Judge Kelley pursuant to the District
Court's Program for Random Assignment of Civil Cases to
Magistrate Judges. Id.
16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Kelley ordered this action
reassigned to a district judge and recommended that the
complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See Docket No. 6. The case
caption of the complaint identifies the Central Berkshire
District Court as a defendant and also names as defendants
the (1) the United States Department of Justice; (2) the
United States Department of Education; (3) Southern Berkshire
District Court; and (4) the Supreme Court of the State of New
York. See Docket No. 1. The May 16, 2016 Order explained that
it is impossible to ascertain the nature of plaintiff's
allegations and that he has been a prolific litigant in other
federal courts. See Docket No. 6.
16, 2016 Order also explained that ten years ago, a lawsuit
was filed in the District of Massachusetts by a plaintiff
named Michael Bruno Mazzeo-Unum. See Mazzeo-Unum v.
Continental Casualty Company Inc, et al., C.A. No.
06-10934-MAP (4(m) dismissal Oct. 30, 2006). A cursory
comparison of the pleadings filed in 2006 with those filed in
the instant action leads this Court to conclude that they
were both filed by the same person.
16, 2016, the action was randomly reassigned to the
undersigned. See Docket No. 7. By Order dated June
2, 2016, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Kelley and dismissed the complaint.
See Docket No. 8. The Order directed plaintiff to
show cause why he shouldn't be enjoined from further
filings as an abusive litigant. Id. The time for
responding to the Court's June 2, 2016 Order expired on
June 23, 2016. The Court's records indicate that the
Order that was mailed to plaintiff at the address on the
docket was returned to the Court as
undeliverable. See Docket No. 11.
filing of factually and legally deficient pleadings are a
burden on this Court's time and resources. By Order dated
June 2, 2016, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why he
shouldn't be enjoined from further filings as an abusive
litigant. His litigation history reveals that he has filed
complaints in many cases in this and other federal courts,
some of which seem to relate in some fashion to the instant
action. Given plaintiff's litigious history and the lack
of legal merit of these cases, this Court finds that
plaintiff's conduct is malicious, vexatious, and an abuse
of the processes of this Court for the administration of
district court has the power to enjoin litigants who abuse
the court system by filing groundless and vexatious
litigation. Elbery v. Louison, 201 F.3d 427, 1999 WL
1295871 at *2 (1st Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citing Cok v.
Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 34 (1st Cir.
1993)). Under Rule 11, the Court may impose sanctions on an
unrepresented party if she submits a pleading for an improper
purpose or if the claims within it are frivolous or
malicious. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(1), (2); Eagle
Eye Fishing Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 20 F.3d
503, 506 (1st Cir. 1994) (pro se parties, like all
parties and counsel are required to comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure); Pronav Charter II, Inc. v.
Nolan, 206 F.Supp.2d 46, 53 (D. Mass. 2002) (Rule 11
applies to pro se litigants) (citation omitted).
Rule 11 exists, in part, to protect defendants and the Court
from wasteful, frivolous and harassing lawsuits and provides
for sanctions as a deterrent. See Navarro-Ayala v.
Nunez, 968 F.2d 1421, 1426 (1st Cir. 1992). In addition
to Rule 11, section 1927 of Title 28 provides for the
imposition of costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, against a person for unreasonable and vexatious
litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
from authority under Rule 11 and § 1927, a district
court has the inherent power to manage its own proceedings
and to control the conduct of litigants who appear before it
through orders or the issuance of monetary sanctions for
bad-faith, vexatious, wanton or oppressive behavior. See
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46-50 (1991);
accord United States v. Kouri-Perez, 187 F.3d 1, 6-8
(1st Cir. 1999) (same).
foregoing reasons, the plaintiff is ORDERED to
demonstrate good cause, in writing, within twenty-one (21)
days from the date of this Memorandum and Order, why he
should not be enjoined from filing ...