Miller v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Tuesno v. Jackson

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-302(DCB)(JMR) (S.D. Miss. Feb. 25, 2013)   Cited 8 times
    In Tuesno v. Jackson, 5:08-cv-302(DCB)(JMR), 2013 WL 685928, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 25, 2013), this Court recognized that the most important of the Pioneer factors is the "reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant.

    However, the most important of the four Pioneer factors is the third, "the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant." See Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d 457, 463 (8th Cir. 2000)("The four Pioneer factors do not carry equal weight; the excuse given for the late filing must have the greatest import"); Miller v. State of Minnesota, 2009 WL 3062012 *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2009)("the most critical factor will always be the 'reason-for-delay factor,' i.e., the nature, credibility and persuasiveness of the excuse proffered by the moving party.")(citing Gibbons v. United States, 317 F.3d 852, 854 (8th Cir. 2003)(quoting Lowry, 211 F.3d at 463)).

  2. Miller v. Hatch

    Civil No. 03-5429 (PAM/SRN) (D. Minn. Apr. 1, 2010)   Cited 5 times
    In Hatch v. Miller, 179 Ga. 629, 630 (176 S.E. 631), this court said: "The petition definitely described the property the plaintiff sought to recover.

    Miller has been warned before that "`[f]rivolous . . . claims consume a significant amount of judicial resources, diverting the time and energy of the judiciary away from processing good faith claims.'"Miller v. State of Minnesota, Civ. No. 08-6555, at *7 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2009) (Tunheim, J.) (citing Tyler, 839 F.2d at 1292). It is within the discretion of this Court to place restrictions on any litigation who files non-meritorious actions and who repeatedly abuses the judicial process.