Sindram v. United States Marshal Service et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
MICHAEL JOSEPH SINDRAM,
Debtor.
____________________________
MICHAEL JOSEPH SINDRAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 08-00559
(Chapter 7)
Adversary Proceeding No.
09-10041
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE FILING RECITING ADDITIONAL
ACTS OF ALLEGED HARASSMENT BY THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
The plaintiff Sindram has filed a document entitled
Additional Acts of Retaliation Committed by United States
Marshals Service on February 24, 2010 to Invoke Immediate Court
Intervention.
Sindram contends that the United States Marshals Service has
engaged in acts making it impossible for him to prepare for the
scheduling conference in this adversary proceeding, and he
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: April 20, 2010.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 09-10041 Doc 15 Filed 04/21/10 Entered 04/21/10 14:20:04 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

requests that the court grant injunctive relief against the
Marshals Service. 	The court, however, has granted the United
States Marshals Service’s motion to dismiss, thereby rendering
moot any need to protect Sindram with respect to preparing for
the scheduling conference (which, in effect, has been canceled). 1
In any event, Sindram has not proceeded in a procedurally
appropriate fashion. 	The transactions of which he complains
occurred after the filing of the complaint. 	Under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(d), made applicable by Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 7015:
On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just
terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading
setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that
happened after the date of the pleading to be
supplemented. 	The court may permit supplementation
even though the original pleading is defective in
stating a claim or defense. 	The court may order that
the opposing party plead to the supplemental pleading
within a specified time.
Because Sindram has not filed a motion, there is nothing for the
defendant to respond to at this juncture.
Even if Sindram had filed a motion, the court would deny the
motion. 	Now that the court has determined that the complaint
must be dismissed, there is no good reason to entertain a
1 	To the extent that Sindram alleges that the acts also
interfered with his filing a paper in an appeal pending in the
District Court, it would appear that the District Court, not this
court, is the appropriate forum in which to seek relief regarding
such interference (if subject matter exists and pursuit of such
relief is proper) .
2
Case 09-10041 Doc 15 Filed 04/21/10 Entered 04/21/10 14:20:04 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

supplemental pleading raising a request for injunctive relief in
aid of Sindram’s pursuit of the adversary proceeding. 2 	The court
will enter a judgment dismissing the adversary proceeding
pursuant to the memorandum decision and order addressing the
United States Marshals Service’s motion to dismiss.
In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Sindram’s Additional Acts of Retaliation
Committed by United States Marshals Service on February 24, 2010
to Invoke Immediate Court Intervention (Docket No. 5) is stricken
as procedurally improper.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: All counsel of record; Office of United States
Trustee.
2 	It is unnecessary to address whether the court would
have subject matter jurisdiction over Sindram’s request for
injunctive relief were he allowed to file a supplemental
pleading.
3	O:\TEEL\Garrett\Decisions\SindramMTDMarshal Mem Decsn re New Events.wpd
Case 09-10041 Doc 15 Filed 04/21/10 Entered 04/21/10 14:20:04 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3