Opinion
Civil Case No. 10-1397 (RJL).
September 24, 2010
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Michael Joseph Sindram ("Sindram"), pro se, has filed numerous appeals in this Court from Orders entered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia in proceedings against Jamison Condominium Association, Chase Home Finance, LLC, Gustavo F. Velasquez, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Marshal Service. On August 6, 2010, this Court issued a Memorandum Order (the "August 6, 2010 Memorandum Order") dismissing with prejudice Civil Case Nos. 09-2356, 10-31, 10-134, 10-402, 10-814, 10-1084, and 10-1246. The August 6, 2010 Memorandum Order also enjoined Sindram from filing any new matters in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia without seeking leave to file from the Chief Judge of this Court under certain procedures outlined in the Memorandum Order and obtaining the Chief Judge's approval.
On August 19, 2010, Sindram filed a notice of appeal from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia to this Court that was docketed as the above-captioned case. On August 23, 2010, Sindram filed a motion seeking recusal of myself and immediate reinstatement of all seven civil cases that were dismissed with prejudice in the August 6, 2010 Memorandum Order. The motion for recusal asserts that this Court has "deliberately appoint[ed] himself" to Sindram's cases "to abrogate Debtor/Apellant's constitutionally-guaranteed rights." Pl.'s Mot. 1 [#4]. Sindram has failed to marshal even a scintilla of factual or legal support for his motion, and it is clear that his accusations are, yet again, wholly without merit. Furthermore, he failed to seek and obtain leave to file this matter in violation of the August 6, 2010 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, it is this 22nd day of September, 2010, hereby
ORDERED that Sindram's Motion for Recusal and Immediate Reinstatement of Bankruptcy Matters [#4] be DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Sindram be enjoined from submitting any additional filings in the above-captioned matter; and it is further
ORDERED that the above-captioned case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter be referred to the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia for possible contempt, per this Court's August 6, 2010 Memorandum Order.