Free Exhibit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:83-mc—O0O62—PCD Document 2023 Filed O2/17/2006 Page1 of 4 j
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Q5? ¥j§iE ''`"
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT “ `-~" ’
nv RE; ; cast No. (ighfnli Q?
ANTHONY R. MARTIN—TRIGONA ; JUDGE: Peter C. Dorseyil`

COMPLAINANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY é

Now comes Complainant Craig T. Conley (“Conley”), pro se, in S
supplementation of his November 2l, 2005 Application Pursuant to §
Order, and hereby respectfully refers the Court to a February 7, i
2006 Order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Z
Circuit in Case No. 05-4597 (a true copy of which Order is attached
hereto as Exhibit “E”). I
To the extent that leave to make this filing may be required, I
such leave is hereby respectfully requested. Q
The attached Order was issued in an Appeal filed by Martin
(from a U.S. District Court judgment in an action in which he was
a defendant), whose Appeal was dismissed solely because he had j
violated the same nationwide permanent injunction Order issued by é
this Court. Q
Indeed, the Sixth Circuit specifically cited to In re Martin- E
Trigona (D. Conn. 1984}, 592 F.Supp. l566; i.e., the Sixth Circuit
has again expressly recognized the ongoing validity and nationwide
enforceability of that Order, as well as Martin’s second
adjudicated.violation thereof in an Ohio Federal Court. (Reference
Conley's January 26, 2006 Supplemental Authority.) i

i


nznneageeeee$€;;;;;;;:::->‘rirtriseaseseases;
;;;ijfffff§jr———--e:11;rn;1;5E1i2iii?EITEg§§§§§§E%II?§iii

aznnnenseeee¥E§;;;;;;;r:--“Tifvtivaeeéve§$;§@he;zs§§nnn§naaeeaai as

Case 2:83-mc—00062—PCD Document 2023 Filed 02/17/2006 Page 2 of 4
It therefore is respectfully suggested that the attached Sixth _
Circuit Order is supportive of Conley’s pending November 21, 2005 1
Application Pursuant to Order before this Court. 2
Respectfully submitted,
COMPLAINANT CRAIG T. CONLQY, Q
‘ _p.`L"O SG I
604 Unizan Plaza Q
220 Market Avenue South
Canton, Ohio 44702 Q
330/453-1900 Q
330/453~2l70 [Fax]
PROOF OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing Supplemental Authority was served, by 1
regular U.S. Mail this 15m day of February, 2006, upon the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Connecticut, 157 Church Street, New 1
Haven, Connecticut 06510 and upon Anthony R. Martin, P.0. Box 1851, 1
New York, New York 10150-185l. 1
1
{ 17 E 1
COMPLAINANT CRAIG T. CONLE ,
pro se i
1
1
1
1
1


.. 2 -
1

- an l. . Case 2:83-m-c#00'062—PCD Document 2023 i Filed 02/17/2006 Page 3 of 4
_ ‘ in · No. 05-4597 · p
tmrrao stwrss comm or APPEALS I p
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT F I l E D
SUAREZ. CORPORATION INDUSTRIES, et g FEB 0 i] Zum; T
al., -
Plaintiffs·Appellees, 5 LEONARD GRE"' clerk
v_ - ` g QLQEK
iwrnonv R. MARTIN, >. JZ; I
l Defendant-Appellant. _ E l
r I 'l `
Before: MERRITT, GILMAN. and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. l. . p
This matter is before the court upon consideration ofthe motion ofthe appellees to dismiss i
the appeal. They argue that the notice of appeal is late, that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion failed to i
toll appeal period, and that Anthony R. Martin has violated a nationwide permanent injunction i
by bringing this appeal without first obtaining leave of this court. Martin has not responded. I
. A review ofthe documents before the court indicates that the notice of appeal was filed ;
within the time provided by Fed. R. app. P. 4(a). The judgment ofthe district court was entered on E
September Z0, 2005. Any time-tolling Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion was due to be filed by October 4,
2005. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Manin’s September 28, 2005 motion Q
to vacate and the October 3. 2005 supplement to the motion to vacate tolled the appeal period. See l
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) and 59: Fed- R. App- P. 4(a)(4). The motion to vacate was denied by marginal
` order on October 4, 2005. and Martin timely appealed on November 3, 2005. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a) and 26(a). huh *· *"°' _ p i
GREEN. Cletli E


` ' ` ‘ " ---- . .. .......... ,7 _. _ _ _ 7 __ 1
Case 2:83-mc—00O62—PCD Dlq8ti6?_gg9'!p23 Filed O2/17/2006 Page 4 of 4 i
. ~ _ · 2 · . . ;
i - Although the notice of appeal was timely Bled, Martin did I101 comply with the permanent E
injunction in Martin-Trigona v, Lavieu {In re Marrin—Il`rigona), 592 F. Supp. 1566 [D. Conn. $84)-
That injunction prohibited Martin from initiating "any new lawsuit, action, proceeding. or matter in i
any federal coun, agency, tribunal, committee, or other federal fomtn of the United States . . . , .
without first obtaining leave of that court. agency, tribunal, committee, orother l`ot·um.” ld at 1571. i
Martin did not tile an application for leave to tile this appeal as required by the injunction, and the
failure to tile such an application is "sui}icicnt basis for sustaining a motion to dismiss such a `
lawsuit, action, proceeding, or matter ..., ” See ld. at 1572.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.
- I ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
l
» . i
. l
i
l
_ t l
- l
l
l
` l
it 'i'RUli »r*t t
Attest: i
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
By.Qa.....,;, K_’,...’_,:._l............... _ i