Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-2179 _ Patrick A. Carlone, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Asbestos Workers Local 34; Roger LeClaire, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis _ Submitted: December 11, 2014 Filed: January 21, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Patrick Carlone appeals the district court’s1 o
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-2179 _ Patrick A. Carlone, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Asbestos Workers Local 34; Roger LeClaire, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis _ Submitted: December 11, 2014 Filed: January 21, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Patrick Carlone appeals the district court’s1 or..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-2179
___________________________
Patrick A. Carlone,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
Asbestos Workers Local 34; Roger LeClaire,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
____________
Submitted: December 11, 2014
Filed: January 21, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Patrick Carlone appeals the district court’s1 order imposing sanctions against
him, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, including dismissing his pro se
civil action with prejudice and enjoining him from filing future lawsuits unless he
both is represented by counsel and has obtained prior court approval. Upon careful
review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Rule 11 sanctions, as Carlone has an extensive history of filing frivolous and
vexatious lawsuits and has threatened to continue doing so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c);
Carman v. Treat,
7 F.3d 1379, 1381-82 (8th Cir. 1993). However, we modify the
restrictions imposed by the district court to reflect that Carlone is enjoined from filing
future lawsuits unless he either is represented by counsel or has obtained prior court
approval. Subject to that modification, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, adopting the reports and recommendations of the Honorable
Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-2-