Summary
holding that a disbarred attorney is not entitled to special solicitude
Summary of this case from United States v. PierceOpinion
No. 12-1834-cv
08-30-2013
STEPHEN THEODORE MITCHELL, Appellant, DOROTHY BARNEY, Plaintiff, v. CON EDISON, Defendant-Appellee.
FOR APPELLANT: Stephen T. Mitchell, pro se, South Orange, New Jersey. FOR APPELLEE: Barbara Jane Carey, Richard Levin, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York, New York.
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th day of August, two thousand thirteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
FOR APPELLANT:
Stephen T. Mitchell, pro se, South Orange, New
Jersey.
FOR APPELLEE:
Barbara Jane Carey, Richard Levin, Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York,
New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Kiyo A. Matsumoto, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on April 12, 2012, is AFFIRMED.
Stephen Theodore Mitchell, an attorney disbarred from practice in the state of New York, see In re Mitchell, 76 A.D.3d 269, 903 N.Y.S.2d 749 (2d Dep't 2010), appeals pro se from a judgment holding him in civil contempt and requiring him to pay a monetary sanction and attorneys' fees. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to award attorneys' fees and impose sanctions for counsel's failure to obey discovery orders. See Townsend v. Benjamin Enters., Inc., 679 F.3d 41, 58 (2d Cir. 2012); Fonar Corp. v. Magnetic Resonance Plus, Inc., 128 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1997). "We review a finding of contempt under an abuse of discretion standard that is more rigorous than usual." S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 145 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although a court "is ordinarily obligated to afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants," that rule does not apply where, as here, a person trained as a lawyer represents himself. Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010).
After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for substantially the reasons articulated by the district court in its detailed decision entered on March 16, 2012.
We have considered all of Mitchell's arguments not specifically addressed by the district court and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court