Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 87

Filed 03/24/2004

Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DANTE DELORETO Plaintiff v. SEBASTIAN SPADA and GARY CHUTE Defendants

: : : : : : : :

Case No. 3:00cv1011 (JCH)

March 23, 2004

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Pursuant to this Court s inherent power to carry out its functions under Article III of the United States Constitution and pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants, Sebastian Spada and Gary Chute, and their attorney, respectively move for a Protective Order to save them from the annoyance, oppression and undue burden imposed upon them by the pro se plaintiff s pattern of harassment and abuse related to this action.

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 87

Filed 03/24/2004

Page 2 of 8

In support of this motion, the defendants submit the attached memorandum of law and its attachments. DEFENDANTS By Office of Corporation Counsel

__________________________________ Irena J. Urbaniak Attorney for Defendants Office of the Corporation Counsel City of New Britain 27 West Main Street New Britain, Connecticut 06051 Tel. (860) 826-3420 Federal Bar Number ct01322

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on March 23, 2004, a copy of the above was mailed to the pro se plaintiff: Dante DeLoreto 33 Maxwell Drive Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109

__________________________________ Irena J. Urbaniak Attorney at Law

-2-

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 87

Filed 03/24/2004

Page 3 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DANTE DELORETO Plaintiff v. SEBASTIAN SPADA and GARY CHUTE Defendants

: : : : : : : :

Case No. 3:00cv1011 (JCH)

March 23, 2004

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

I.

BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Dante DeLoreto, filed an action against

Sebastian Spada and Gary Chute ( defendants ) alleging that the defendants unlawfully seized the plaintiff in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as in violation of state law. In particular, the plaintiff claims

that the two defendants, both City of New Britain police officers acting under color of law, violated the plaintiff s rights by illegally pursuing him, forcing his vehicle off the road and then detaining the plaintiff all outside their lawful

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 87

Filed 03/24/2004

Page 4 of 8

jurisdiction.

The plaintiff further claims that the defendants

then falsely reported that the plaintiff violated Connecticut motor vehicle laws. II. A. HARRASING PLEADINGS Motion; Summary Judgment dated January 7, 2004 Irena Irbaniak swithed police reports Plaintiff has different police reports Ha Ha Ha Ha (Exhibit A) B. Motion: Impeach Irbaniak dated February 7, 2004 Irbaniak is a liar . . . Ha Ha Ha . . . . (Exhibit B) C. Motion; Summary Judgment dated February 12, 2004 Plaintiff moves to summary judgment based on the fact that Irena Irbaniak made Intentional False Misrepresentations to Judge Hall in her latest February 5, 2004 Motion Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment . (Exhibit C) D. Motion: Chronic Liar Syndrome dated March 11, 2004 Judge Hall, your Honor chronic liars syndrome is what we are dealing with here. . . (Exhibit D) E. Motion; Irbaniak is lying again dated March 11, 2004 (Exhibit E) F. Motion: Formal Meeting Demanded dated March 11, 2004 Judge Hall, here we go again with the lies Chute, heres a man who made the Front page of every local paper, went to trial for five (5) days but claims through his lying lawyer. . . (Exhibit F)

-2-

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 87

Filed 03/24/2004

Page 5 of 8

G.

Motion; Examine Irbaniak Competency dated March 11, 2004 1. 2. Irbaniak a chronic liar claims the FBI and Chute Incident are false At this point Irbaniak a chronic liar probably does not know when she is lying or telling the truth Irbaniak denies the FBI and the Chute Incident is just plain lying. (Exhibit G)

3.

H.

Motion; Chronic Liar Syndrome dated March 11, 2004 (Exhibit H.)

I.

Motion; Examine lies dated March 11, 2003 (Exhibit I)

J.

Motion; Stop Actions dated March 11, 2004 1. 2. To many lies Irbaniak the Vantastic liar is so distorted and tells so many lies that Irbaniak probally doesn t even know the truth . . . (Exhibit J)

K.

Motion; Chronic liars Syndrome dated March 11, 2004 1. Judge Hall, Your Honor plaintiff feels Chute and Irbaniak are not capable of telling the truth, chronic liars have the same problems . . . (Exhibit K)

L.

Motion: Information is True dated March 11, 2004 . . . If Chute does not remember whole page article and [5] day trial, he is a liar like his attorney. (Exhibit L.)

-3-

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 87

Filed 03/24/2004

Page 6 of 8

III. A.

LEGAL ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF S HARASSMENT AND PERSONAL ATTACKS MUST STOP. Federal Courts have both the inherent power and the

constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions. In Re Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254,

1261 (2d Cir. 1984)(affirming, in part, injunction against pro se plaintiff s abusive litigation tactics). in Martin-Trigona: [T]he United States Courts are not powerless to protect the public, including litigants . . . from the depredations of those . . . who abuse the process of the Courts to harass and annoy others with meritless, frivolous, vexatious or repetitive . . . proceedings. Martin-Trigona, 737 at 1262. In addition, Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a protective order may enter to protect As the Court held

a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In

entering a protective order, the Court may justice requires. Id.

make any order which

In this case, justice requires that

this Court enter an order to prevent the plaintiff from filing

-4-

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 87

Filed 03/24/2004

Page 7 of 8

motions which are harassing and personal attacks of the defendants and their counsel. Plaintiff has engaged in a pattern and practice of filing harassing and oppressive pleadings which are full of personal attacks on the defendants and their counsel. through L.) (See Exhibits A

In sum, the plaintiff has imposed a great burden

and expense upon the defendants by his irrational filing of irrelevant pleadings which are personal attacks. Plaintiff made the allegation but fails to provide any evidence supporting the allegation. The motions were filed to

harass and place undue burden on the defendants. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the defendants seek a protective order. DEFENDANTS By Office of Corporation Counsel

__________________________________ Irena J. Urbaniak Attorney for Defendants Office of the Corporation Counsel City of New Britain 27 West Main Street New Britain, Connecticut 06051 Tel. (860) 826-3420 Federal Bar Number ct01322 -5-

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 87

Filed 03/24/2004

Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on March 23, 2004, a copy of the above was mailed to the pro se plaintiff: Dante DeLoreto 33 Maxwell Drive Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109

__________________________________ Irena J. Urbaniak Attorney at Law

-6-