Gulla v. Dennehy, et al, No. 07-1936 (1st Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1936 ANTHONY GULLA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. KATHLEEN DENNEHY, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge] Before Torruella, Circuit Judge, Selya, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge. Anthony Gulla on brief pro se. Daryl F. Glazer, Department of Correction, Legal Division, and Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees, Kathleen Dennehy, Susan Martin, Luis Spencer and Christopher Mitchell. Alexandra M. Jojin, James A. Bello and Morrison Mahoney LLP, on brief for appellee, Denise Thomas. March 14, 2008 Per Curiam. Pro se appellant Anthony Gulla appeals from orders dismissing his civil action for want of prosecution and declining to grant his motion to vacate the dismissal order. After careful review of the record and appellate briefs, we affirm. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. Gulla had been given a generous extension of time to prepare his amended complaint, but he failed to timely file it. Instead, he filed a late request for another extension, insisting that it was timely. But the district court had previously stated that "no further extensions" would be granted, and the belated request for substantively and formally defective. additional time was It did not show that an extension of time was justified, and it did not comply with formal prerequisites for motions that had been specified and emphasized in prior court orders. Before dismissing the suit, the court had warned Gulla that his suit would be dismissed if he did not timely file his amended complaint. no abuse of discretion. 645, 647 (1st Cir. Under these circumstances, there was See Figueroa Ruiz v. Alegria, 896 F.2d 1990) (indicating that an action may be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution where a plaintiff has disobeyed the court's orders and ignored its warnings). We find Gulla's appellate arguments to be unpersuasive. The documents he provides on appeal do not establish that his case -2- was meritorious and that he was incapacitated during the critical time period. Affirmed. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
