TINKHAM v. PERRY, 1:12-cv-00229-GZS. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Maine
Number: infdco20130712880
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2013
Summary: ORDER RE: LETTER (ECF No. 111) GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge. Before the Court is a letter, dated July 4, 2013, addressed to the Magistrate Judge and signed by Plaintiff Juliet Alexander (ECF No. 111). 1 Letters that open with allegations that no one is reading Plaintiffs' filings and close with tennis idioms are frivolous filings that require no action by this Court. Plaintiffs would be well-advised to focus their filings going forward on the merits of the claims on which they seek judic
Summary: ORDER RE: LETTER (ECF No. 111) GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge. Before the Court is a letter, dated July 4, 2013, addressed to the Magistrate Judge and signed by Plaintiff Juliet Alexander (ECF No. 111). 1 Letters that open with allegations that no one is reading Plaintiffs' filings and close with tennis idioms are frivolous filings that require no action by this Court. Plaintiffs would be well-advised to focus their filings going forward on the merits of the claims on which they seek judici..
More
ORDER RE: LETTER (ECF No. 111)
GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge.
Before the Court is a letter, dated July 4, 2013, addressed to the Magistrate Judge and signed by Plaintiff Juliet Alexander (ECF No. 111).1 Letters that open with allegations that no one is reading Plaintiffs' filings and close with tennis idioms are frivolous filings that require no action by this Court.
Plaintiffs would be well-advised to focus their filings going forward on the merits of the claims on which they seek judicial review. To the extent that Plaintiffs are seeking particular action from the Court, Plaintiffs shall file a properly labeled motion. The Court is obliged to warn Plaintiffs that repeated groundless and frivolous filings may result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of this action and future filing restrictions. See Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1993) (requiring that the Court warn any litigant before restricting the litigant's ability to file).
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. This letter was mailed to the Court along with multiple other filings, which have been separately docketed (ECF Nos. 108-110).
Source: Leagle
