Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:83-mc—OOO62—PCD Document 2022 Filed O1/26/2006 Page1 of 4 [
C IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT www, ..,vr
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CYy `C'’
IN RE: ; criss No. H samiélélz-;`C·kiPc'D) Y ‘·- if 5*5*
ANTHONY R. MARTIN~TRIGONA : JUDGE: Peter C. Dorsey

COMPLAINANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Now comes Complainant Craig T. Conley (“Conley"), pro se, in i
supplementation of his November 21, 2005 Application Pursuant to i
Order, and hereby respectfully refers the Court to a January 17,
2006 Order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in Case No. 05~4102 (a true copy of which Order is attached
hereto as Exhibit “D”).
To the extent that leave to make this filing may be required,
such leave is hereby respectfully requested.
The attached Order was issued in an Appeal filed by Martin,
whose Appeal was dismissed, in large part, because he had violated
U the nationwide permanent injunction Order issued by this Court.
Indeed, the Sixth Circuit specifically cited to In re Martin—
Trigona (D. Conn. 1984), 592 F.Supp. 1566; i.e., the Sixth Circuit
has expressly recognized the ongoing validity and nationwide
enforceability of that Order, as well as Martin's violation thereof
in an Ohio Federal Court.
In the underlying action, U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio Case No. 5:04 CV 1164 (an action referred to in
Conley’s Application), Martin was not a party, but he nonetheless
I
)

zsaastaeaasaaraaezssaeraesaiazze;:a:zae;;e;ee;gr§;;aagaargaSéééQESQQEESTEP§E§i;€iIi§i§i?ES?S$$ES?ii??€iiEiE5§E§%i$EGEIIIIIIITIIII s-=
_

I_`I`T`I_"`TTr_rrrr- `

asaaeraraaeaaeaaeiaasreeaseeaaseas;aaSSSQEESSESSSErESadaaagQQEEQQQEEEQSPPEQIEITI§ii§E?ES?S§SES?§i$?€EEEiEEPEEEQEEESEIIICIIIITIII zaa



Case 2:83-mc—OOO62—PCD Document 2022 Filed O1/26/2006 Page20f4 E
l
“injected” himself therein without prior leave of Court and in
plain and intentional violation of this Court’s nationwide I
permanent injunction. Order. (The reference within. the Sixth i
Circuit Order to “district court case No. 6:04—CVll64” is a typo Q
vis—a—vis the first “6” therein.)
It therefore is respectfully suggested that the attached Sixth
Circuit Order is supportive of Conley’s pending November 2l, 2005
Application Pursuant to Order before this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
Leif; ij E iii F
COMPLAINAN CRAIG T. CONLEY,
pro se
604 Unizan Plaza
220 Market Avenue South
Canton, Ohio 44702
330/453-1900
330/453—2l70 [Fax]
PROOF OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing Supplemental Authority was served, by
regular U.S. Mail this 24m day of January, 2006, upon the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Connecticut, 157 Church Street, New
Haven, Connecticut 06510 and upon Anthony R. Martin, P.O. Box l85l,
New York, New York l0l50—l85l.
COMPLAINANT CRAIG T. CONiEY,
pro se
-2..
l
l

‘ Case 2:83-mc—0O062-PCD Document 2022 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 3 Of 4
_ . ‘ No. 05-4102 N
. Uurrao stares count or APPEALS ‘ F l L E D P
F OR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
‘ JAN 1 7 2005 I
SUAREZ CORPORATION INDUSTRIES, ) l
) . LEONARD GREEN. Clerk
Plaintifi`—AppeIlee, )
P y . )
v. ) Q B Q E. E
RODNEY NAPIER, et 3.]., ) EXHIBIT "D"
) l
Defendants, )
) l
ANTHONY R. MARTIN, )
)
Movant-Appellant. ) ‘
) .
Before: MARTDQ, RYAN, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. n g
This matter _is before the court upon consideration ofthe motion of Suarez Corporation
Industries to dismiss the appeal tiled by Anthony R. Martin. It is argued that Martin was not a party
in the district court, that he has not paid the appellate filing fee, and that he is in violation ofa
nationwide permanent injunction imposed against him in Martinéfrigona v. Lavien (In re Martin-
Trigona), 592 F. Supp. 1566 (D. Conn. 1984). Martin has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
Martin was not a party in district court case No. 6:04-CV1164 but instead filed motions in
that case after the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Martin sought to have sealed
documents in that case opened and to allow him to be on the telephone during any hearing regarding
his motion to open sealed documents. His motions were denied on July 14, 2005, and he appealed
on August 15,2005. Our records indicate that he paid the appellate filing fee.

. . "‘*"_"`“_"i
V ` in Case 2:83-mc—0OO62—PCDh Document 2022 I i Filed 011/26/2006 Page 4 of 4
1 i _? T Ne. 054102 i
It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed. Martin was not a named party in the district court,
he did not seek nor was he given intervenor status, and his filings in the district court violate the 1
injunction prohibiting him from tiling documents in cases in which he is not a party. See Skulls v. {
Champion Int'! Corp., 35 F.3d 1056, 1058 (6th Cir. 1994); Martin-Trzgomz, 592 F. Supp. at 1572. i
- ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
K Q ,
Clerk . I
l
I
l