They ask for a money award against Deep
for having "filed seven (7) separate actions in four different courts alleging essentially the same
allegations, which allegations are without merit in both fact and law." Lawyers Mot. for
Sanctions at 2. They also request that Deep be enjoined from beginning any new lawsuits against
them, adding them as defendants in any pending lawsuits, or making any motions in this or any other
lawsuit without the prior permission of this court. Finally, they request that Deep be enjoined from
filing any paper authored in whole or in part by a lawyer who does not sign the paper or comply with
this court's rules for admission to practice. The motion is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
Since I am abstaining, at the Lawyers' request, from considering the state law allegations
of Deep's complaints against them, I am not in a position to determine that his "allegations are
without merit in both fact and law." Making a money award on the basis that his allegations lack
merit would be inconsistent with my decision to abstain in favor of the New York state court.
I am acutely aware of Deep's repetitive filings, of their prolixity, of the difficulty in
measuring his wide-ranging allegations against known rules of law, and of the appearance that
someone with legal knowledge has assisted Deep at some level (not at a high enough level). It is
appropriate, therefore, to put Deep on notice that filing restrictions "may be in the offing"
in this District. See Cok v. Family Court of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993). This
represents the "cautionary order" of which Cok speaks. Groundless and
inappropriate filings will not be tolerated. Until now, I have given Deep the benefit of treatment as a
pro se litigant in interpreting his filings. I put him on notice that if in the future he files a
paper that appears to have been drafted in part by a lawyer, I may require him to come to this Court
to be examined under oath how it was prepared:
What we fear is that in some cases actual members
of the bar represent petitioners, informally or otherwise, and prepare briefs for them which the
assisting lawyers do not sign, and thus escape the obligation imposed on members of the bar, typified
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, but which exists in all cases, criminal as well as civil, of representing to the court
that there is good ground to support the assertions made. We cannot approve of such a practice. If
a brief is prepared in any substantial part by a member of the bar, it must be signed by him. We
reserve the right, where a brief gives occasion to believe that the petitioner has had legal assistance,
to require such signature, if such, indeed, is the fact.
Ellis v. Maine, 448 F.2d 1325, 1328 (1st Cir. 1971).
Finally, the Lawyers have filed, through their local attorney of record, a letter dated
September 22, 2006, offering information about "recent events that could have a bearing on the
Attorney Defendants' Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11." Lawyers Notice/Correspondence
(Docket Item 89). It refers to a motion that Deep has filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of New York, seeking a second reconsideration of that court's order dismissing Deep's action
against Amici LLC. The letter states that Deep's motion for reconsideration "refers repeatedly
to proceedings in the District of Maine before this Court, and activities of this Court."
Id. It concludes: "If requested, we will provide the Court with copies of the September
18, 2006 motion or any other of the above-referenced . . . pleadings and orders." Id.
Without knowing the significance of "events" or what Deep has said in his motion, I have
no reason to request copies of the motion or other items. Instead, I expect this Order to end this
court's involvement with this case.
VII. CONCLUSION
As to all defendants, I DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Counts I-III, V-VII in 05cv-
118. As to the Lawyers, I DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE all remaining counts of 05-cv-
118 and all of 05-cv-149.
As to all the other defendants, I DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE all remaining
counts of 05-cv-118 and all of 05-cv-149, except that for Trans World only, the dismissal of Count XI
in 05-cv-118, and Count V in 05-cv-149 is without prejudice.42
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2006
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE