Ward v. Pennsylvania New York Central Transp. Co., 468
| Decision Date | 28 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 468,Docket 71-2028.,468 |
| Citation | 456 F.2d 1046 |
| Parties | Raymond T. WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA NEW YORK CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Raymond T. Ward, pro se.
Emile Z. Berman, A. Harold Frost and Sheila L. Birnbaum, New York City (John R. Urban, New York City, of counsel), for Carroll & Trapani.
Before FEINBERG and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges, and THOMSEN, District Judge.*
Plaintiff (Ward) appeals from two orders of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in an action which he filed on November 13, 1970, in a state court against eighteen defendants, and which was removed to the Southern District by six of the defendants —Judges Levet and Wyatt of that district, Judges Lumbard, Hays, and Anderson of this court and a former United States Attorney (the federal defendants).
The action arises out of a series of controversies between Ward and the defendant railroad which began in 1953. In 1960 Ward filed an unsuccessful action in the Southern District against the railroad (60 Civ. 4949). Thereafter he filed four other unsuccessful actions1 in the Southern District against the railroad and four other defendants in the present case, namely, the union, Carroll, Trapani and Dr. Daly. In the last two of those actions, 68 Civ. 1094 and 68 Civ. 1686, Judge Wyatt granted summary judgment for the defendants therein and ordered Ward not to "commence any further actions in this Court against the defendants * * * on account of any matter or thing set forth in the complaint in this action." That order was affirmed by this court (Docket Nos. 33256 and 33257, May 1, 1969); the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari; and by order dated May 18, 1970, in 68 Civ. 1094, Judge Wyatt reaffirmed his prior order and instructed the clerk of the court to notify plaintiff "that if there are any further attempts by him to submit such documents for filing, citation to him for contempt of court will issue."
To avoid Judge Wyatt's order Ward filed this action in a state court, joining as defendants the railroad, some of its employees, the union, some individuals connected with it, Dr. Daly, Carroll & Trapani, and the federal defendants referred to above. After removal to the Southern District, all defendants filed motions to dismiss on various grounds.
All of those motions were granted, and in each order dismissing one or more of the defendants the district judge who entered the order included a provision enjoining Ward from instituting any further actions against such defendants in any court in the United States on any matter set forth in the complaint in 70 Civ. 5514.
On October 19,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Abdelhadi, 1:03CR610.
...court, it is within that court's power to issue the injunction under the All Writs Act'") (quoting Ward v. Pennsylvania New York Cent. Transp. Co., 456 F.2d 1046, 1048 (2d Cir.1972)). A district court's power in this regard includes the power to enjoin or bind non-parties. See In re Baldwin......
-
Albright v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...subsequent proceedings in state court. Berman v. Denver Tramway Corp., 197 F.2d 946 (10th Cir. 1952); Ward v. Pennsylvania New York Central Transportation Co., 456 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1972). It has been held that the exception stated in § 2283 permits a federal court to enjoin an individual ......
-
Kane v. City of New York
...States, 462 F.2d 897 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1031, 93 S.Ct. 540, 34 L.Ed.2d 482 (1972); Ward v. Pennsylvania New York Central Transp. Co., 456 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1972); Ex parte Tyler, 70 F.R.D. 456 (E.D.Mo. 1975); Ruderer v. Dep't of Justice, 389 F.Supp. 549 22 Ex parte Tyler, 7......
-
In re Martin-Trigona
...897 (2d Cir. 1982). See also Harrelson v. United States, 613 F.2d 114, 116 (5th Cir.1980), and Ward v. Pennsylvania New York Central Transportation Co., 456 F.2d 1046, 1048 (2d Cir.1972). 18. At the hearing held in open court on June 17, 1983 on the federal defendants' motion for a permanen......