GLADU v. MAGNUSSON et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NICHOLAS A. GLADU, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:22-cv-00134-JDL
)
MATTHEW MAGNUSSON, et al., 	)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDERS
Plaintiff Nicholas A. Gladu, proceeding pro se, filed this action on May 9, 2022,
against Defendants Matthew Magnusson, James Hancox, Randall Liberty, and
various 	other 	John 	Does 	employed 	by 	the 	Maine 	Department 	of 	Corrections
(“MDOC”) (ECF No. 1). 	Gladu filed an Amended Complaint on May 27, 2022 (ECF
No. 11). 	Defendant Liberty appeared specially to file a Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s
In Forma Pauperis Status (ECF No. 4), arguing that Gladu had accrued multiple
strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and thus should be
prohibited from bringing the claim without paying a filing fee. 	Gladu filed an
Opposition 	(ECF 	No. 	23) 	to 	the 	motion, 	which 	included 	a 	request 	to 	stay
proceedings. Gladu also filed a Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 26), arguing that the
Defendants were attempting “to interfere with meritorious claims filed against them
and to cause Plaintiff to have to needlessly defend such a motion.” ECF No. 26 at 1.
Judge Nivison issued an Order denying the motion to revoke Gladu’s status
(ECF No. 33) and an Order (ECF No. 35) dismissing as moot Gladu’s Motion to Strike
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 51 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
the Defendants’ Motion for Order Revoking In Forma Pauperis Status. 	Gladu filed
an Objection and Request for De Novo Review (ECF No. 42) that (1) argues that Judge
Nivison erred in designating Gladu’s appeal in Gladu v. Waltz, No. 19-2220, slip op.
117791239 (1st Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) a strike under the PLRA; (2) requests the Court
to incorporate all of his arguments from his Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to
Revoke In Forma Pauperis Status; (3) requests leave to be excused from case citations
due to lack of access to the law library; and (4) objects to Judge Nivison’s “cautionary
order,” conceding that he does file a large number of civil actions, but that they do not
constitute baseless or frivolous pleadings.
Upon timely objection to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive
motion, this court may set aside the decision only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P 71(a). I find that Judge Nivison’s Order is not clearly erroneous
or contrary to law, and I note the following regarding Gladu’s request for review.
First, Gladu claims that “the First Circuit expressly stopped short of making such
finding [that the appeal was frivolous] in the . . . dismissal” and claims that “the
appeal . . . was taken in error as an honest mistake of a pro se prisoner litigant.” ECF
No. 42 at 1. 	However, the First Circuit explicitly found that Gladu’s appeal was
frivolous, 	and 	“[a]lthough 	dismissal 	for 	want 	of 	jurisdiction 	is 	not 	a 	ground
specifically enumerated in [section] 1915(g), a strike is nevertheless permissible when
the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.” ECF No. 33 at 4-5 (citing De La Garza v. De
La Garza, 91 Fed. App’x 508, 509 (7th Cir. 2004)). 	Second, Cok warnings are
appropriate not only for baseless and frivolous filings, but also for the filing of
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 51 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
repetitive motions while other related motions remain pending. 	See Brown v.
Ferrara, No. 2:10-CV-523-GZS, 2012 WL 1165880, at *1 (D. Me. Mar. 28, 2012)
(“[F]iling repetitious motions without awaiting rulings from the Court on motions
already on the docket causes unnecessary delay.”), aff'd, No. 12-1847, 2013 WL
7137520 (1st Cir. June 11, 2013).
Judge Nivison also issued an Order (ECF No. 36) denying Gladu’s Motion for
Sanctions (ECF No. 26), finding that Defendant Liberty’s motion was not frivolous
and there was no basis to impose sanctions. Gladu filed a timely Objection (ECF No.
41). Upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Orders, I affirm.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 33) on
Gladu’s Motion to Stay and Motion for Order is AFFIRMED and Gladu’s Objection
(ECF No. 42) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the Orders of the Magistrate
Judge (ECF Nos. 35 and 36) on Gladu’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions
are AFFIRMED and Gladu’s Objection (ECF No. 41) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23rd day of January, 2023.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 51 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>