Michael Allen Kokoski v. William Pauer, individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6501
MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM PAUER, individually, and in his
capacity as a United States Postal Inspector;
UNKNOWN NAMED AGENT OR EMPLOYEE, individually,
and in his capacity as an agent or employee of
the United States Postal Service, the United
States, the State of West Virginia, and/or any
department(s) thereof; WAYNE CANTRELL,
individually and in his capacity as a United
States Postal Inspector; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; MIKE FISHER, individually and in his
capacity as an Assistant United States
Attorney; SHANNON HARMAN, individually and in
her capacity as an employee or representative
of the Pitney Bowes Company,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (5:02-cv-01254)
Submitted: July 2, 2007 Decided: July 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Michael Allen Kokoski appeals the district court order
denying his motion to reconsider the order denying as frivolous his
motion for mandatory sanctions. On June 4, 2007, we directed
Kokoski to show cause as to why he should not be enjoined from
filing petitions for writs of mandamus without leave of court or an
appeal without a district court order certifying the appeal is not
frivolous.
Because Kokoski has a history of filing frivolous cases,
appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus, we will limit his
opportunity to file pleadings in this court. Kokoski is enjoined
from filing petitions for writs of mandamus without leave of court.
In the future, if Kokoski wants to file a petition for a writ of
mandamus in this court, he must file a motion for leave in this
court, accompanied by the proposed petition. The proposed petition
will be reviewed. If the proposed petition is found to be
frivolous, no judicial action will be taken and the motion for
leave will be deemed denied thirty days after the motion was filed.
Otherwise, the petition will be filed. Kokoski is also enjoined
from filing a notice of appeal from a district court order without
a district court order certifying the appeal is not frivolous. If
Kokoski wants to appeal a district court order, he must first file
a motion for leave accompanied with the notice of appeal and this
opinion in the district court.

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
After reviewing the record and the district court order,
we find the appeal is frivolous for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Kokoski v. Pauer, No. 5:02-cv-01254 (S.D. W.
Va. Mar. 29, 2007). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --