Pavilonis v. King

626 F.2d 1075 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P filed a complaint in pro se that for all intents and purposes was impossible to decipher. While the verbiage is short and to the point, it is not possible to determine what she is seeking and why. A second was nearly identical but named an additional defendant. While consulting the district court docket, the magistrate found five other complaints filed by P, against various defendants in which some of the same language contained in the instant complaints was used, apparently without significant elaboration. The magistrate determined that the two complaints before him, even read liberally, were 'completely devoid of any information that would assist Ds in answering,' were 'completely violative of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,' and 'appeared frivolous.' The magistrate denied the motions for appointment of counsel. The magistrate also recommended that she be restricted from filing new actions without the permission of a district judge. The district judge approved the magistrate's recommendation and issued an order enjoining P from filing new lawsuits without permission of a judge of the District Court of Massachusetts, and ordering the clerk to refuse to file additional papers submitted by her without such permission. The complaints were dismissed, and P appealed.