Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Toegemann v. URI, 94-1779 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 94-1779 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 27, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: March 27, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT __________________ No. 94-1779 ARTHUR J. TOEGEMANN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL. Toegemann has continuously failed to pay a sanction which we affirmed in 1991.
USCA1 Opinion









March 27, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
__________________





No. 94-1779

ARTHUR J. TOEGEMANN,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Arthur J. Toegemann on brief pro se. ___________________
Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General, and Thomas A. Palombo, Special _______________ __________________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.


_____________________

_____________________


















Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Arthur Toegemann ___________ ___ __

appeals a district court order that requires him to forward

monthly payments to defense counsel until Toegemann pays a

total of $1700.00 to the state of Rhode Island. The $1700.00

represents the total amount of sanctions that the district

court imposed on Toegemann for filing and litigating the

instant action - the second of its kind - against the present

defendants. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the

parties' briefs on appeal. Toegemann has continuously failed

to pay a sanction which we affirmed in 1991. See Toegemann ___ _________

v. University of Rhode Island, et al., No. 90-1878, (1st Cir. __________________________________

April 3, 1991)(upholding $1000 sanction). He further offers

no reasons why the district court abused its discretion in

imposing an additional $700 in sanctions since we issued that

decision. The record indicates that this additional sum is

wholly justified by Toegemann's persistent recalcitrance.

Accordingly, the district court's order is affirmed. See _________ ___

Local Rule 27.1.
























Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer