2(4) Motion to Correct Dockets, filed November 9, 2011; (5) Emergency Motion toExpedite Ruling Vacating Dismissal of Writ of Mandamus, filed November 9,2011; and (6) Emergency Motion Seeking Immediate Relief, filed November 10,2011. None of these motions has stated any basis for the relief requested therein,and they should all be denied.
Defendants also cross-move for summary dismissal of this appeal, pursuantto Local Rule 27.0(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. No substantialquestion is presented by the orders from which Plaintiff takes her appeal, nor hasany of her recently-filed motions provided a basis to delay summary disposition.
OMNIBUS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
As Defendants discuss more fully in their cross-motion for summarydisposition, below, Plaintiff has appealed six orders from the proceedings in thismatter before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(―District Court‖), the last of which confirmed the dismissal of her District Courtaction, with prejudice, as a sanction for Plaintiff‘s abuse of the litigation process
and for multiple acts in contempt of court orders. No substantial question ispresented by the appeal of these orders. Indeed, the District Court expressly ruled
that any appeal ―would not be taken in good faith.‖
See Order, dated September
Plaintiff has filed copies of the same motions in a mandamus action
Docket No.11-1668. Defendants have opposed those motions in that action and cross-movedfor an order precluding Plaintiff from filing additional papers in the action.
Case: 11-2292 Document: 00116291138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2011 Entry ID: 5595718