Michael Sindram v. Stuart F. Johnson

D.C. Circuit

Michael Sindram v. Stuart F. Johnson

979 F.2d 248, 1992 WL 345462

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1992

Docket91-7110

StatusUnpublished

This text of 979 F.2d 248 (Michael Sindram v. Stuart F. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael Sindram v. Stuart F. Johnson, 979 F.2d 248, 1992 WL 345462 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

979 F.2d 248

298 U.S.App.D.C. 309

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Michael SINDRAM, Appellant,
v.
Stuart F. JOHNSON.

No. 91-7110.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1992.

Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, D.H. GINSBURG and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir. Rule 14(c). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed June 14, 1991, be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that appellant show cause within 30 days of the date of this order why he should not be enjoined from filing any further pleading which is frivolous, vexatious, harassing or which is not well grounded in fact. See, e.g., In re; Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991) (denying in forma pauperis status to Sindram when filing applications for extraordinary relief upon finding that his requests were repetitious and frivolous); Sindram v. Briggs, et al., Nos. 92sc2905 and 91sc26258, Memorandum Opinion at 26-28 (D.C.Super.Ct. May 7, 1992) (sanctioning Sindram for filing abusive and harassing claims; finding that he made false statements concerning his annual income; and enjoining him from filing any further pleadings in forma pauperis).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until resolution of the remainder of the appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

979 F.2d 248

298 U.S.App.D.C. 309

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Michael SINDRAM, Appellant,
v.
Stuart F. JOHNSON.

No. 91-7110.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1992.

Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, D.H. GINSBURG and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir. Rule 14(c). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed June 14, 1991, be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that appellant show cause within 30 days of the date of this order why he should not be enjoined from filing any further pleading which is frivolous, vexatious, harassing or which is not well grounded in fact. See, e.g., In re; Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991) (denying in forma pauperis status to Sindram when filing applications for extraordinary relief upon finding that his requests were repetitious and frivolous); Sindram v. Briggs, et al., Nos. 92sc2905 and 91sc26258, Memorandum Opinion at 26-28 (D.C.Super.Ct. May 7, 1992) (sanctioning Sindram for filing abusive and harassing claims; finding that he made false statements concerning his annual income; and enjoining him from filing any further pleadings in forma pauperis).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until resolution of the remainder of the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

979 F.2d 248, 1992 WL 345462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-sindram-v-stuart-f-johnson-cadc-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack