Opinion
CV-21-45-BU-BMM
10-27-2021
JOHN T. HESSERT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA Defendant.
ORDER
BRIAN MORRIS, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
INTRODUCTION
The Court issued an order on July 29, 2021, that directed pro se plaintiff John T. Hessert (“Hessert”) to avoid communicating with anyone related to this litigation other than opposing counsel. (Doc. 29). With regard to opposing counsel, the Court limited Hessert to one email communication per day. This Order arose from Hessert's repeated efforts to contact Montana Municipal Interlocutory Authority (“MMIA”), the insurer for Defendant City of Bozeman (“the City”) and his barrage of efforts to communicate with counsel for Defendant and Defendant's employees. Id. Hessert has violated the order by contacting MMIA and his continued threats and contacts with Defendant's counsel. (Doc. 29). Hessert has also asked that this action be stayed until February 1, 2022. (Doc. 79).
DISCUSSION
Hessert filed a Complaint on May 19, 2021, against Defendant City of Bozeman (the “City”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The City moved for an order limiting Hessert's communications with employees and agents of the City, following numerous emails in which Hessert threatened and berated individuals related to the City. (Doc. 12). The Court issued an order on July 29, 2021, limiting Hessert's communications with the City's counsel to one email per day and forbidding any communication with any other individual related to this litigation, including the City's insurer MMIA. (Doc. 29); see also (Doc. 45 at 4 (clarifying that MMIA is an entity covered by the Court's no contact order)). The Court held a telephonic status conference with both parties on September 14, 2021, to reiterate Hessert's obligations under the Court's order after Hessert continued to email the City's defense counsel, Elizabeth Lund, multiple times per day. (Doc. 75); see also (Doc. 55 at 3) (“On August 16, 2021, Hessert sent the City's counsel seven (7) emails.”).
Hessert has since violated the Court's order by contacting MMIA three separate times on October 20, 2021. (Doc. 82, Ex. 6). The Court had explicitly advised Hessert that he may not contact MMIA as they are “an entity related to this litigation and, therefore, covered under the Court's order.” (Doc. 45 at 4).
Hessert not only violated the Court's order, but his tone in his communications with MMIA was threatening and combative. Hessert's emails to MMIA contained profanity and threatened litigation should MMIA refuse to pay him $15,000. (Doc. 86, Ex. 6 at 3 - 4). He also threatened to “teach you people in montana [sic] some respect.” Id. Hessert's emails to MMIA also contained denigrating statements about opposing counsel, Elizabeth Lund, referring to her as “a joke, ” stating “i [sic] know im [sic] doing a better job and putting more time and energy into this than lund” and referring to her as “the lying attorney lund.” Id.
Hessert appears to have confined himself to the once-daily email to defense counsel allotted to him under the Court's order since the September 14, 2021, status call. See (Doc. 29 at 2). However, his emails to Lund continue to be belligerent, threatening, and altogether lacking in professional decorum. Hessert has threatened Lund's career, writing: “im [sic] going to end ur [sic] career as an attorney” and “how about u [sic] bow out before i [sic] end ur [sic] career?”. (Doc. 82, Ex. 5). Hessert has also baselessly threatened to have Lund criminally prosecuted, writing “i [sic] will seek to have you incarcertated [sic] and charged criminally” and “im [sic] going to put u [sic] and ur [sic] staff in jail.” Id. Hessert called Lund a “bold [sic] faced liar” and asserted that he is “taking the trash out in montana [sic] and im [sic] putting the american [sic] flag back up on the pole.” Id.
When Lund addressed these threats with Hessert, Hessert replied “if u [sic] are construing this as a threat, you are delusional.” Id.
The Court informed Hessert at the status conference on September 14, 2021, that the Court expects a certain standard of civility when communicating with opposing counsel, but Hessert has chosen to disregard this directive. Hessert has been afforded latitude as a pro se plaintiff who is unfamiliar with the operations of this court, but a pro se plaintiff in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record. Karlozian v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist., 8 Fed.Appx. 835, 836 (9th Cir. 2001). A pro se plaintiff may not proceed in such a fashion as to abuse the judicial process or prejudice the opposing party's interest. Fed. Land Bank of Spokane v. Heidema, 224 Mont. 64, 68, 727 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1986). The mere fact Hessert is not represented by counsel does not excuse the abuse and threats he has directed at Lund and MMIA in their email interactions.
Hessert has disregarded the Court's Order with his threats against opposing counsel. The Court further finds the emails Hessert has sent to MMIA violate the Court's no-contact order. (Doc. 29). The Court hereby orders Hessert to show good cause for his actions in violating the Court's order or else be subject to contempt of court and face sanctions including dismissal of his claims.
Hessert has informed the Court that he will be unable to engage further with this case until February 1, 2022. See (Doc. 79 at 13 (“we, the plaintiff, . . . will not be able to further engage till [sic] after february [sic] 1 2022”). The Court will therefore stay proceedings in this matter until February 1, 2022. Hessert will then have until February 15, 2022, to file a brief to show good cause for violating the Court's order limiting communication. (Doc. 29).
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. This action is STAYED until February 1, 2022.
2. The Clerk's Office shall not accept any more filings from either party until February 1, 2022.
3. Hessert and the City of Bozeman are not to contact either the Clerk's Office or Court staff by any means, telephone or electronic, until February 1, 2022.
4. Neither party shall have contact with the other until after February 1, 2022, at which point the same restrictions as set forth in the Court's previous order (Doc. 29) shall apply.
5. Hessert shall file a brief showing good cause for violating the Court's order (Doc. 29) by February 15, 2022 and prepare appropriate sanctions for a violation.
6. The City of Bozeman may file a reply brief proposing sanctions appropriate for Hessert's violation should the Court find him in contempt by February 22, 2022.
7. Hessert shall appear at a hearing on February 24, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. at Missouri River Courthouse in Great Falls, Montana, to show cause why the Court should not hold Hessert in contempt for breach of the Court's order limiting Hessert's communications with individuals related to this litigation. (Doc. 29).