Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 94.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 355 Words, 2,283 Characters
Page Size: 614 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9756/86-6.pdf

Download Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 94.6 kB)


Preview Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:00-cv-01115-PCD Document 86-6 Filed O2/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT E

# · _ " ‘·’• **~’••·—•,¤v••~»•
Case 3.00-cv—01115-PCD Document 86-6 Fi|ed('02/14/20O§OCIES(§e1§ f2
ors , S. _
5 g"` UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS V (
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
‘ At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square,
in the City of New York, on the 9th day of May
two thousand one.
Present:
Hon. Thomas J. Meskill, y _,nxg%5€§E6E§i$>\\
»Hon. Amalya L. Kearse,.,_ X3? F|LED ’$%\
Circuit Judges,‘ gg. *4 Qg
Hon. Dominic J. Squatrito, yr qi 9 " m
.,District Judge. Kg ai ggga-
\ M . . <.¢°°
·,__ :g_{___. __y1!?]§;7€)`t' 1
`Y?€Y2:;g ;·?(G`$\
Suzanne M. Searles, `
Plaintiff-Appellant,
- v. — No. 01-7007
West Hartford Board of Education, et al.,
Defendants·Appellees.

Appellant has filed, pro se, motions to proceed in forma
pauoeris, to consolidate this appeal with previously decided
appeals, and for assignment of counsel. Appellees move for dismissal
of the appeal and for sanctions. upon due consideration it is
ORDERED that appellant's motions be and they hereby are denied, and
that appellees‘ motion to dismiss the appeal be and it hereby is
granted. The appeal is dismissed because it lacks an arguable basis
in fact or law. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);
za U.s.c.§ l9l5(e).
The motion for sanctions is denied, but appellant is reminded
that she has twice previously been warned by this Court about filing
frivolous appeals, see Searles v. West Hartford Board of Education,
No. 98-9133 (2d Cir. May 6, 1999) Searles v. Relic, No. 96-9675 (2d
Cir. May 7, 1997); and she has now been warned by the district court
not to file further suits against these defendants with respect to
these eventsg (Appellant is advised that any further frivolous
filings in this Court may result in the imposition of monetary
sanctions and/or an order that she obtain Court permission before
filing any documents.
P; (TRUE GOFY , ron was comm.
HAY - 9 200) www crass:
I **5-WE? As w(A»JD£\TE‘, MAY -9 2001*