Filed: May 12, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 09-2997 _ M.R. MIKKILINENI v. GIBSON-THOMAS ENGINEERING CO, INC.; EDWARD SCHMITT; MARK GERA; DERRY TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY; INDIANA COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY; INDIANA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; LINDSAY MCCABE & LEE; ZIMMER KUNZ; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; UNITED STATES _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00491) District Judge: Honorable Arthur
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 09-2997 _ M.R. MIKKILINENI v. GIBSON-THOMAS ENGINEERING CO, INC.; EDWARD SCHMITT; MARK GERA; DERRY TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY; INDIANA COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY; INDIANA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; LINDSAY MCCABE & LEE; ZIMMER KUNZ; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; UNITED STATES _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00491) District Judge: Honorable Arthur J..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2997
___________
M.R. MIKKILINENI
v.
GIBSON-THOMAS ENGINEERING CO, INC.;
EDWARD SCHMITT; MARK GERA; DERRY
TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY; INDIANA
COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY; INDIANA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; LINDSAY MCCABE
& LEE; ZIMMER KUNZ; COMMONWEALTH
OF PENNSYLVANIA; UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00491)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 11, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 12, 2010)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
1
Appellant M.R. Mikkilineni initiated a pro se civil action in United States
District Court for the District of Columbia against Gibson-Thomas Engineering Company
(“GTE”) and two of its employees, Edward Schmitt and Mark Gera, among others. After
the action was transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania, the District Court
dismissed it sua sponte in an order entered on April 21, 2004. The court reasoned that
Mikkilineni had previously been determined to have engaged in vexatious litigation
against the named defendants, and that the instant complaint contained claims identical to
those previously litigated. The complaint was wholly insubstantial, frivolous, and
completely devoid of merit, and thus the District Court dismissed it for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Oneida
Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Oneida County, N.Y., 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974) (some federal
questions are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or
otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the
jurisdiction of the District Court”). The District Court directed the Clerk not to accept
any other pro se complaints from Mikkilineni unless he obtained prior authorization from
the court. Mikkilineni filed a response to the court’s order but he did not file a notice of
appeal.
On April 9, 2009, Mikkilineni filed a Rule 60(b) motion, which the District
Court denied in an order entered on April 13, 2009. On May 11, 2009, Mikkilineni filed
a motion for reconsideration of that order, which the District Court also denied.
2
Mikkilineni has separately appealed the April 13, 2009 order of the District Court
denying his Rule 60(b) motion at C.A. No. 09-2434.
At issue in this appeal, following the June 5, 2009 denial of his motion for
reconsideration, Mikkilineni filed an item in the district court, on June 23, 2009, titled
“Plaintiff’s Application for leave to file Complaint with new Causes of Action.”
Ironically, on it he noted that the application was related to D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00491,
and the defendants named in the proposed complaint included, among others, GTE and its
employees. Through this application, Mikkilineni sought to accomplish what he could
not through his Rule 60(b) motion and motion for reconsideration – that is, file a
complaint – by complying with the injunction and asking for permission from the District
Court in advance of pursuing the new action.
GTE submitted a response, asserting that Mikkilineni’s application and
proposed complaint did not involve new causes of action and was barred by the District
Court’s April 21, 2004 order enjoining Mikkilineni from filing any further litigation of a
harassing nature against GTE. Mikkilineni’s application was impermissibly designed to
collaterally attack a valid state court judgment related to his vexatious litigation. In sum,
after years and years of enduring Mikkilineni’s vexatious litigation in federal court, and
incurring substantial legal fees defending those actions, GTE had filed an action in state
court under the provisions of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8351 et seq. for Mikkilineni’s
wrongful use of civil proceedings. GTE had prevailed in that action and obtained a
3
judgment against Mikkilineni in the amount of $115,390.83. At the conclusion of
Mikkilineni’s state court appeals, GTE obtained a Writ of Execution and Mikkilineni’s
Bank of America account then was garnished in the amount of $131,610.34, which
included interest and costs.
GTE stated:
Mikkilineni has no concept of finality. The various matters
that he has incessantly filed against the Defendants and others
have no legal or factual basis as numerous courts have
determined through the appropriate judicial processes. This
Court needs to look no further than Mikkileneni’s own
Exhibit 2 attached to his Complaint as evidence of his
handiwork. Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Complaint filed by
GTE in the matter at No. 6137 of 2001. A review of the
Complaint, and specifically Paragraph 13, shows the 21+
matters Mikkilineni has filed against the Defendants since
1992. All 21 matters, replete with the same allegations of
fraud, injustice, deprivation of rights and tortuous injury
inflicted upon Mikkilineni by various Defendants that he sets
forth in the instant case, have been dismissed over and over.
(GTE Response, at 5.)
In an order entered on June 26, 2009, the District Court denied
Mikkilineni’s application for leave to file a complaint with new causes of action as an
impermissible attempt to harass GTE and circumvent the court’s previous rulings.
Mikkilineni appeals.
We will affirm. We review the District Court’s order enforcing its
injunction for an abuse of discretion, Int’l Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agr. Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 820 F.2d 91, 95 (3d
4
Cir.1987). An “abuse of discretion exists where the district court’s decision rests upon a
clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application
of law to fact.” Id. As a threshold matter, Mikkilineni lost the opportunity to have review
of the validity of the District Court’s April 21, 2004 order barring him from filing any
further civil actions without prior authorization when he failed to timely appeal it.
Accordingly, we proceed on the basis that the injunction is valid and may be enforced.
District courts in this circuit may issue an injunction to require vexatious
litigants to obtain the approval of the court before filing further complaints. Abdul-Akbar
v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329, 332 (3d Cir. 1990). Nevertheless, “[a]ccess to the courts is a
fundamental tenet of our judicial system; legitimate claims should receive a full and fair
hearing no matter how litigious the plaintiff may be.” In re Oliver,
682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d
Cir. 1982). To protect a litigious litigant’s legitimate claims, we have previously
approved of an order “directing that the litigant not file any section 1983 claims without
leave of court and that in seeking leave of court, the litigant certify (1) that the claims he
wishes to present are new claims never before raised and disposed of on the merits by any
federal courts, (2) that he believes the facts alleged in his complaint to be true, and (3)
that he knows of no reason to believe his claims are foreclosed by controlling law.”
Abdul-Akbar, 901 F.2d at 333. Based on the response filed by GTE, it plainly appears
that leave to file a new complaint properly was denied because Mikkilineni cannot meet
this test for establishing that he has a legitimate claim. The complaint he proposed to file
5
against GTE, Bank of America, and the state court judge is precisely the kind of harassing
litigation the injunction properly was designed to prevent.
We will affirm the order of the District Court denying Mikkilineni’s
application for leave to file a complaint with “new causes of action.”
6
