Ridlon v. Town of Windham

,. ,- ;,~TF . - u; ~ A ; % E 1 7-

STATE OF MAINE A ;:I?fB,F;71 SS SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CLER5.s O , C F ! ~ ~ CIVIL ACTION iiol;mR-1 A q : O j \ $ , DOCKET NO. AP-06-37 1 J

CLIFFORD RIDLON,

Plaintiff v. ORDER

TOWN OF WINDHAM,

Defendant

In response to the court's order of February 6, 2007, plaintiff Clifford Ridlon has submitted two handwritten documents. These documents contain references to a prior bankruptcy proceeding, to prior civil or criminal proceedings, to past assistance he may have provided to law enforcement officials, and to past events which resulted, he asserts, in his having lost 10 years of h s life and having been railroaded for some years into the former Augusta Mental Health Institute. The court sees no indication that copies of these documents were served, as required, upon the attorney for the Town. Very little of plaintiff's submissions relates to the dispute at hand. With respect to the pending appeal, it is difficult to understand plaintiff's contentions, but he appears to allege that he was given assurances by the town that he would be entitled to 50 parlung spaces and that he has since been treated unfairly in numerous respects. Despite the court's order and the requirements of Rule 80B(e), plaintiff has not submitted any administrative record and the court is at a loss to determine how it can possibly undertake any judicial review of the Town's action on plaintiff's license application without an administrative record. Plaintiff' attorney filed a motion to withdraw in mid October and by order filed November 17, 2006, the court gave plaintiff 20 days to obtain a new attorney or the

court would assume he was representing himself. No new attorney has since appeared for plaintiff. The November 17 order put plaintiff on notice that if new counsel did not appear, plaintiff would be required to follow all of the applicable rules in the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. At this point the court can only conclude that the plaintiff has not complied with those rules or with the court's February 6 order. Moreover, the Law Court has consistently made clear that pro se litigants are not excused from the procedural and other rules applicable to represented litigants. E.n, Dumont v. Fleet Bank, 2000 ME 197, ¶ 13,760 A.2d 1049,1054. The entry shall be: Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for failure to file the administrative record. The clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).

Dated: March G ,2007 0 Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

Date Filed - CUMBERLAND Docket No.- AP-06-37 County ~~~i~~ 8OB APPEAL ---

C L I F F O R D A. RIDLON TOWN O F WINDHAM ZONING BOARD O F A P P E A L S , WINDHAM, ME

I VS.

C L I F F O R D RIDLON-PRO S E Defendant's Attorney 8 CLINTON S T , PORTLAND ME ~ ~ ~ ~ 04*103 ~ KENNETH - COLE~ I11 ESQ* ( T G I N O)F WINDHAM) -&&INTONS-T NATALIE BURNS, ESQ. (TOWN O F WINDHAM) PO BOX 4510 *= -P-OR'rMG-06W%- PORTLAND, ME 0 4 1 1 2 - 4 5 1 0 775-7271 -58- ) -BAVIB-TIFR~SICYr-ESQ 47-7-GGSGRW 4 % ~-400 -S%S FQRTl&AN-B~-&@&3609 -;L*?-;L&M Date of Entry