Oliver v. Michaud, et al
| THOMAS OLIVER |
| JOSEPH L. MICHAUD, MARY S. MCELROY, Individual and Official Capacity, JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR., Individual and Official Capacity, WILLIAM E. SMITH, Individual and Official Capacity, PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, Individual and Official Capacity, LINCOLN DOUGLAS ALMOND, Individual and Official Capacity, GUSTAVO A. GELPI, JR., Individual and Official Capacity, JEFFREY R. HOWARD, Individual and Official Capacity and WILLIAM J. KAYATTA, JR., Individual and Official Capacity |
| 23-1518 |
| June 20, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| RICO |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 16, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER entered by David J. Barron, Chief Appellate Judge; Lara E. Montecalvo, Appellate Judge and Julie Rikelman, Appellate Judge. Pursuant to First Circuit Internal Operating Procedure X(C), the petition for rehearing en banc has also been treated as a petition for rehearing before the original panel. The petition for rehearing is denied by the panel of judges who decided the case, as the petition fails to satisfy the standards for rehearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1). As it appears that there may be no quorum of circuit judges in regular active service who are not recused who may vote on petitioner's request for rehearing en banc, the request for rehearing en banc is also denied. See 28 U.S.C. 46(d); 1st Cir. Loc. R. 35.0(a)(1). In any event, a majority of judges in regular active service do not favor en banc review. [23-1518] (GB) [Entered: 08/16/2023 08:49 AM]
|
| MOTION to amend judgment filed by Appellant Thomas Oliver. Served on 05/01/1801. [23-1518] CLERK'S NOTE: Relief selection was incorrect and/or incomplete. Correction made by clerk's office. No further action required. (TO) [Entered: 08/16/2023 03:27 PM] |
| JUDGMENT entered by David J. Barron, Chief Appellate Judge; Lara E. Montecalvo, Appellate Judge and Julie Rikelman, Appellate Judge. 23-1518 Affirmed [23-1518] (GB) [Entered: 08/14/2023 08:51 AM] |
| PETITION for hearing en banc filed by Appellant Thomas Oliver. Served on 11/01/2019. [23-1518] (TO) [Entered: 08/14/2023 04:14 PM] |
| MOTION to Vacate Order of the Court entered 07-11-2023 filed by Appellant Thomas Oliver. Served on 08/08/2023. [23-1518] CLERK'S NOTE: Relief selection was incorrect. Correction made by clerk's office. No further action required. (TO) [Entered: 08/08/2023 07:11 PM] |
| LETTER regarding COURT ORDER DATED 7-11-23 filed by Party Thomas Oliver. Served on 07/12/2023. [23-1518] (TO) [Entered: 07/12/2023 05:32 PM] |
|
ORDER entered by Lara E. Montecalvo, Appellate Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant's Motion to Strike is denied. [23-1518] (GB) [Entered: 07/11/2023 02:15 PM]
|
|
ORDER entered by Lara E. Montecalvo, Appellate Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Thomas Oliver has filed a "Letter in Response to 'Order of Court' dated 7-6-23" in which he disputes his obligation to file paper copies of his brief and employs threatening and scurrilous language. Appellant was properly notified of his obligation to file three paper copies of his brief and was given a deadline to do so. When appellant failed to comply with the deadline, an order issued informing him that, if he failed to comply with the extended deadline to file the paper copies of his brief, his appeal would be subject to dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P. 31(b) ("[a]n unrepresented party proceeding in forma pauperis must file 4 legible copies [of his brief] with the clerk. . . . The court may by local rule or by order in a particular case require the filing . . . of a different number"); 1st Cir. L. R. 25.0(b)(3) (when a brief is tendered electronically, the clerk's office will review the brief, and if it is compliant with federal and local rules, will send a notification that the party should then file the "appropriate number of identical paper copies so that they are received by the court within seven days of the notification."). If appellant wished to be relieved of his obligation to file the paper copies of his brief, it was incumbent upon him to file a motion to that effect. See Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(1) ("[a]n application for an Order or other relief is made by motion unless these rules prescribe another form."). Rather than take the appropriate course dictated by the above-quoted rules, appellant filed a letter which disputed his obligation, cast aspersions on the court, and threatened "(additional) repercussions [,]" including repeatedly calling the Clerk's Office as well as the chambers of two judges. In addition, he burdened the Clerk's Office with multiple unnecessary and inappropriate contacts, which he threatens to continue. In light of the foregoing, appellant's letter is treated in part as a motion to be relieved of filing the required paper copies of his brief and, so treated, is granted. However, appellant is hereby placed on notice that filing letters containing threatening language, or engaging in other harassing or abusive behavior, including contacting judges' chambers, may result in dismissal of his appeal, sanctions, or other appropriate action. [23-1518] (GB) [Entered: 07/11/2023 02:06 PM]
|
| LETTER regarding "order of court" dated 7-6-23 filed by Party Thomas Oliver. Served on 07/10/2023. [23-1518] (TO) [Entered: 07/10/2023 04:12 PM] |
| NOTICE of default and intent to dismiss issued for failure to file paper copies of the appellant's brief filed on June 23, 2023 [ # 6575609-2 ]. THREE (3) paper copies of the brief are due 07/13/2023 for Thomas Oliver or this case may be dismissed in accordance with 1st Cir. R. 3.0(b) for lack of prosecution. [23-1518] (GB) [Entered: 07/06/2023 11:08 AM] |
| LETTER regarding status of federal defendants (includes certificate of service) filed by Attorney Lauren S. Zurier for Appellees Lincoln Douglas Almond, Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr., Jeffrey R. Howard, William J. Kayatta, Jr., John J. McConnell, Jr., Mary S. McElroy, William E. Smith and Patricia A. Sullivan. Served on 06/26/2023. [23-1518] (LSZ) [Entered: 06/26/2023 04:37 PM] |
| LETTER filed by Appellant Thomas Oliver in response to letter filed by Attorney Lauren S. Zurier for Appellees Lincoln Douglas Almond, Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr., Jeffrey R. Howard, William J. Kayatta, Jr., John J. McConnell, Jr., Mary S. McElroy, William E. Smith and Patricia A. Sullivan. Served on 06/26/2023. [23-1518] CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. (TO) [Entered: 06/26/2023 08:16 PM] |
| MOTION to strike letter filed by Attorney Lauren S. Zurier for Appellees [ # 6576074-2 ] filed by Appellant Thomas Oliver. Served on 06/26/2023. [23-1518] CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. (TO) [Entered: 06/26/2023 08:19 PM] |
| BRIEFING schedule set. Brief due 08/02/2023 for appellant Thomas Oliver. Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 31(a), appellee's brief will be due 30 days following service of appellant's brief and appellant's reply brief will be due 21 days following service of appellee's brief. [23-1518] (GB) [Entered: 06/23/2023 12:25 PM] |
| APPELLANT'S BRIEF filed by Appellant Thomas Oliver. Served on 06/21/2023. THREE (3) paper copies IDENTICAL to that of the electronically filed brief must be submitted so that they are received by the court on or before 06/30/2023 . Brief due 07/21/2023 for APPELLEES Lincoln Douglas Almond, Gustavo A. Gelpi Jr., Jeffrey R. Howard, William J. Kayatta Jr., John J. McConnell Jr., Mary S. McElroy, Joseph L. Michaud, William E. Smith and Patricia A. Sullivan. [23-1518] (GB) [Entered: 06/23/2023 12:32 PM] |
| BRIEF tendered by Appellant Thomas Oliver. [23-1518] (TO) [Entered: 06/21/2023 02:56 PM] |
| CIVIL CASE docketed. Notice of appeal (doc. #14) filed by Appellant Thomas Oliver. [23-1518] (GB) [Entered: 06/20/2023 07:21 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
