Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Martin J. Zielinski, Petitioner v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, et al.

APPENDIX

i

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A Opinion in the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

(June 13, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 1

Appendix B Order in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin

(September 3, 2021) . . . . . . . . . . . App. 5

Appendix C Statutory Provisions Involved

42 U.S.C. § 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 10

42 U.S.C. § 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 11

App. 1

APPENDIX A

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Chicago, Illinois 60604

No. 21-3042

Submitted June 10, 2022*

Decided June 13, 2022

______________________________________

MARTIN J. ZIELINSKI,

)

Plaintiff-Appellant,

)

)

v.

)

)

WISCONSIN LABOR AND INDUSTRY )

REVIEW COMMISSION, et al.,

)

Defendants-Appellees.

)

______________________________________ )

*

We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal

arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the

court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

App. 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 17-cv-471

Lynn Adelman, Judge.

Before

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

ORDER

Martin Zielinski appeals from the denial of various

motions he filed in the district court several years after

the court entered judgment against him. The district

judge determined that these motions were frivolous

and vexatious, and he imposed a filing bar on Zielinski.

We affirm.

This appeal arises out of a federal suit that Zielinski

filed in 2017 in connection with a worker’s

compensation settlement adjudicated in Wisconsin’s

state courts. The district judge dismissed several of

Zielinski’s claims on jurisdictional grounds and others

for failure to state a claim. After Zielinski’s attempt to

amend his complaint failed to address the identified

deficiencies, the judge—in December 2017—dismissed

the complaint and entered a final judgment. Zielinski

did not appeal. Instead, he peppered the court with

wide-ranging motions and filings that the judge

rejected in April 2018, May 2018, and March 2021,

respectively, because Zielinski provided “no reason to

App. 3

relieve him from the final judgment or to reopen the

case.”

In April 2021, Zielinski filed three more motions

seeking to add civil rights claims, new parties, and

“past filings” to the lawsuit. Several defendants

opposed the motions as frivolous and baseless and

requested sanctions against Zielinski.

The judge denied Zielinski’s motions and barred

him from further filing in the case. See Support Sys.

Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995). The

judge explained that even if Zielinski’s motions were

construed as an attempt to amend his complaint, any

postjudgment amendment presupposed that a motion

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b)

had first been granted—which was not the case here.

The judge then granted the defendants’ motions for

sanctions because Zielinski hadn’t responded to the

motions and, even if he had, he continued to inundate

the docket with frivolous filings that burdened both the

defendants and the court.

On appeal Zielinski asserts that the judge erred by

denying him an opportunity to add claims, join new

parties, and submit evidence that had been excluded

from the state courts’ proceedings. But after entry of a

final judgment, district courts may not permit

amendment unless the judgment is set aside under

Rule 59 or 60. See Vesely v. Armslist LLC, 762 F.3d

661, 666–67 (7th Cir. 2014). And Zielinski has failed

multiple times to have the judgment set aside.

Zielinski also challenges the filing bar as

unconstitutional. But he waived this challenge by not

App. 4

responding to the defendants’ motions for sanctions.

See Ennin v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC, 878 F.3d 590, 595

(7th Cir. 2017). Waiver aside, the judge acted well

within his discretion to impose the filing restriction.

Courts have the inherent authority to curb abusive and

frivolous litigation by imposing filing restrictions

that—as here—are tailored to the abuse. See In re

Anderson, 511 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1994); McCready v.

eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 892 (7th Cir. 2006); Mack, 45

F.3d at 186.

We have reviewed Zielinski’s remaining arguments

and none has merit.

AFFIRMED

App. 5

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case No. 17-cv-471

[Filed September 3, 2021]

________________________________

MARTIN J. ZIELINSKI,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

WISCONSIN LABOR AND

)

INDUS. REVIEW COMM’N, et al., )

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

ORDER

I dismissed this case in December 2017 for failure

to state a claim on which relief may be granted and

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and directed the

Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. See ECF Nos. 9,

15, & 16. In April 2018, I denied plaintiff Martin

Zielinski’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the

judgment, explaining that Rule 60(b)(3) applies to the

judgment entered in this case, not the state court

judgment that the plaintiff complains of, and finding no

other reason to afford relief from the final judgment or

to reopen this case. ECF No. 43. I denied Zielinski’s

App. 6

motion for reconsideration of that order on May 22,

2018. ECF No. 52.

Zielinski filed yet another motion to reopen on

August 21, 2020, more than two years after the case

was dismissed and his prior motions for relief from

judgment were denied, as well as a motion for

summary judgment and a “motion for Rule 60(3).” ECF

Nos. 59, 60, 61, & 62. For the same reasons as

explained in my previous orders, I denied these

motions on March 17, 2021 and reiterated that this

case remains closed. ECF No. 65.

Undeterred, Zielinski continues to file papers

purporting to litigate this case, forcing defendants to

keep responding years after judgment dismissing this

case was entered. Included are a “motion for a civil

rights claim” and a “motion to add parties,” as well as

a motion to include all previous filings in a supposedly

new proceeding. ECF Nos. 66, 67, & 68. But even if I

construed Zielinski’s motions as an attempt to amend

his complaint, “[o]nce final judgment has been entered

in a case, ‘the district court lacks jurisdiction to

entertain a motion for leave to amend the complaint

unless the plaintiff also moves for relief from the

judgment.’” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th

Cir. 2008) (quoting Camp v. Gregory, 67 F.3d 1286,

1289 (7th Cir. 1995)). This case has been dismissed for

almost four years now and, as explained above,

Zielinski has failed multiple times to demonstrate that

he is entitled to relief from final judgment. See ECF

Nos. 43 & 65. Accordingly, I lack jurisdiction to

entertain his motions and will deny them accordingly.

App. 7

In response to his most recent filings, various

defendants have moved for sanctions in the form of a

filing bar pursuant to Support Systems Int’l, Inc. v.

Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995), under which any

papers that Zielinski attempts to file shall be returned

to him by the Clerk of Court unfiled. See ECF Nos. 72

& 73.1 As Zielinski has not submitted a brief opposing

these motions and the deadline for doing so expired

over two months ago, I will grant them. See Civil Local

Rule 7(b) & 7(d); see also Coleman v. Goodwill Indus. of

Se. Wisconsin, Inc., 423 F.App’x 642 (7th Cir. 2011)

(courts may require strict compliance with local rules).

I also note that, even if he had responded, I find

that such a filing bar is warranted. This case was

dismissed in December 2017. Instead of appealing or

simply accepting that this case is over, Zielinski

continues to inundate the docket with frivolous filings

that burden both the defendants and this Court. See

Mack, 45 F.3d at 185 (explaining that frivolous pro se

filings by litigants who refuse to accept an order

terminating their case “burden[] judges and staff to the

detriment of litigants having meritorious cases”).2

Zielinski is also now apparently harassing state court

judges by serving them with a new complaint/summons

which, even if he was allowed to proceed with (which

he is not), is not an operative pleading in this

1

Some of the new parties that Zielinski seeks permission to

include this putative proceeding are state court judges, see ECF

No. 67; ECF No. 69 at 3, upon whom he has attempted to serve his

putative complaint and summons, see ECF Nos. 72, 72-1, & 74.

2

For instance, Zielinski’s August 2020 motions and filings

amounted to over 370 pages.

App. 8

circumstance unless/until the Court so orders. Based

on his repeated and voluminous filings in the years

since this case was dismissed, it is clear that Zielinski

will continue submitting frivolous papers in pursuit of

benefits to which he believes he was wrongfully denied

access, regardless of how many times this Court denies

his requests for relief, whether they be erroneous,

repetitive, untimely, or moot. Accordingly, I will bar

him from filing any further papers in this case.

See Mack, 45 F.3d at 187.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s motions for a civil rights claim, to add

parties, and to include past filings (ECF Nos. 66, 67, &

68) are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unopposed

motions for sanctions (ECF Nos. 72 & 73) are

GRANTED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of

Court shall return unfiled any document that

Plaintiff attempts to file under this case number

(Case No. 2:17-cv-471) except for an appeal and

any papers related to such an appeal. If it is

unclear whether any future filing falls within this

exception, the Clerk shall refer the filing to this Court

for review.

Finally, Plaintiff is ORDERED to stop serving

papers relating to this case upon other parties until

further notice to the contrary. Failure to do so may

result in further sanction, including assessment

of monetary fines. Plaintiff is further warned

App. 9

that should he attempt to litigate this matter

further and/or continue to submit frivolous

papers in this judicial district, he may be subject

to further sanction.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 3rd day of

September, 2021.

s/Lynn Adelman

LYNN ADELMAN

United States District Judge

App. 10

APPENDIX C

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

42 U.S.C. § 1981 - Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States

shall have the same right in every State and Territory

to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give

evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws

and proceedings for the security of persons and

property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be

subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes,

licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and

enforce contracts” includes the making, performance,

modification, and termination of contracts, and the

enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and

conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected

against impairment by nongovernmental

discrimination and impairment under color of State

law.

App. 11

42 U.S.C. § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with

civil rights

*

*

*

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party,

witness, or juror

If two or more persons in any State or Territory

conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any

party or witness in any court of the United States from

attending such court, or from testifying to any matter

pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to

injure such party or witness in his person or property

on account of his having so attended or testified, or to

influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of

any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure

such juror in his person or property on account of any

verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented

to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or

if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of

impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any

manner, the due course of justice in any State or

Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal

protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property

for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the

right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal

protection of the laws;

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory

conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the

premises of another, for the purpose of depriving,

either directly or indirectly, any person or class of

persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal

privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the

App. 12

purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted

authorities of any State or Territory from giving or

securing to all persons within such State or Territory

the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more

persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or

threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from

giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner,

toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully

qualified person as an elector for President or Vice

President, or as a Member of Congress of the United

States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on

account of such support or advocacy; in any case of

conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more

persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any

act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy,

whereby another is injured in his person or property, or

deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege

of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or

deprived may have an action for the recovery of

damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation,

against any one or more of the conspirators.