Sindram v. Superior Court, District of Columbia

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
MICHAEL JOSEPH SINDRAM,
Debtor.
____________________________
MICHAEL JOSEPH SINDRAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 09-10036
(Chapter 7)
Adversary Proceeding No.
09-10036
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION
The debtor Sindram’s complaint in this adversary proceeding
against the Superior Court for the District of Columbia attacks
an order of April 28, 1992, entered by that court. 	As explained
in a December 31, 2009 memorandum decision and order of this
court (Dkt. No. 6), the debtor’s complaint raises many of the
same issues that were addressed by motions that Sindram
previously filed in the main bankruptcy case, Case No. 08-00559.
As further explained by that memorandum decision and order, this
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: January 20, 2010.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 09-10036 Doc 9 Filed 01/21/10 Entered 01/21/10 16:56:32 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
court remains convinced that the Superior Court has not violated
the Bankruptcy Code by enforcing the April 28, 1992 order’s
injunction against Sindram’s proceeding pro se unless and until
he paid a $3,000.00 penalty payable to the Superior Court. 	On
that basis, the court’s memorandum decision and order directed
the clerk not to issue a summons in this adversary proceeding,
and likewise directed Sindram to file a memorandum showing cause
why this adversary proceeding ought not be dismissed based upon
the analysis set forth in the court’s memorandum decision and
order. 	The debtor has filed a response that fails to raise any
meritorious arguments as to why this adversary proceeding ought
not be dismissed (Dkt. No. 8), and the court shall dismiss this
proceeding accordingly.
The court observes that the debtor’s response states that
“Should the Court continue to frustrate and obstruct justice,
Notice of Appeal [is] hereby given by Michael Joseph Sindram
(‘Disabled Veteran/Debtor/Plaintiff’) hereby appeals . . . .”
This statement is ineffective and does not constitute a notice of
appeal as no order of dismissal was in place when the debtor
filed this statement. 	Any notice of appeal must be filed only
after the court has finally ruled, and any notice of appeal must
be in a document separate from any memorandum the debtor files in
the adversary proceeding. 	Accordingly, the court will direct the
clerk to treat that statement as not constituting a notice of
Case 09-10036 Doc 9 Filed 01/21/10 Entered 01/21/10 16:56:32 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\TEEL\Laura\ORDERS\Sindram\Memorandum Decision_response inadequate notice of appeal premature_Sindram v Superior Court.wpd
appeal from any order that existed at the time of the filing of
the response.
An order to follow.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: All counsel and parties of record; Office of United
States Trustee.
Case 09-10036 Doc 9 Filed 01/21/10 Entered 01/21/10 16:56:32 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3