Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-0468-L
February 2, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court are Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Complaint In Forma Pauperis, and in the Alternative for More Definite Statement, and Brief in Support of Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Complaint In Forma Pauperis, and in the Alternative for More Definite Statement, both filed July 7, 2003. The preceding pleadings were referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the District Court's Standing Order of Reference, filed April 23, 2003, which referred this matter for pretrial management and to submit to the District Court proposed findings and recommendations on dispositive motions. Chalmers did not file a response or otherwise move with regard to the above motion. For the following reasons, the Court is of the opinion that Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Complaint In Forma Pauperis, and in the Alternative for More Definite Statement should be DENIED.
I.
Over the past year, Chalmers has filed multiple lawsuits against various defendants arising from his inability to become a licensed social worker. Because some of these suits were against Texas agencies, the Texas Attorney General's office represented the defendants in these suits. Specifically, the same attorney represents the defendant in this suit, Andrew Marks, and the three defendants in Chalmers v. Johnston, 3:03-CV-1142-D. On July 7, 2003, counsel filed separate, but almost identical, motions to dismiss in this case and in Johnston. The District Court presiding over Johnston referred the motion in that case to this Court, which recommended that it be granted on October 22, 2003. The motion to dismiss filed in this case was automatically referred to this Court by operation of the District Court's April 23, 2003 Standing Order of Reference. However, neither the motion nor brief were routed to this Court until the District Court's recent notification that the motion remained outstanding.It is apparent from the instant motion and brief that the arguments asserted therein do not pertain to Chalmers' claims against Marks. Except for listing the correct case number and containing original signatures, the instant motion and brief are directed entirely to Chalmers' claims in Johnston. In fact, the instant motion and brief contain the names of the three defendants in Johnston in the style of the case, the titles are the same as the motion and brief in Johnston, both address the District Court presiding over Johnston, both refer exclusively to Chalmers' complaint in Johnston and contain the identical arguments, word-for-word, as presented in the motion and brief in Johnston. Indeed, neither the instant motion nor brief contain substantive arguments directed at Chalmers' claims against Marks. Instead, all substantive arguments pertain to Chalmers' claims against the three defendants in Johnston. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the above motion and brief do not pertain to this case and should be denied.