Opinion
1:21-cv-01193-ADA-HBK (PC)
11-09-2022
THOMAS K. MILLS, Plaintiff, v. Z. JONES, et al., Defendants.
December 19, 2022 DEADLINE
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO PLAINTIFF WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DISMISS THIS ACTION
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ENTER DOCUMENTS ON RECORD
(Doc. No. 150)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On September 14, 2022, Defendants filed their omnibus response to a series of motions filed by the Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 137). Incorporated within their omnibus response is a motion to involuntary dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). (Id., Section V at pp. 14-16). Essentially Defendants seek dismissal of this action as a sanction for Plaintiff alleged flagrant disregard of this Court's orders, failure to comply with this Court's Local Rules, and failure to adhere to or comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See generally Id. at 14-15). Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant's motion and the time to do so has expired. (See generally docket); see also L.R. 230.
For Plaintiff's benefit, the Court refers to the page numbers from Defendants' omnibus response instead of the page number on the CMECF document.
Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's one line motion “to enter a classification committee chrono, and a medical classification chrono to the record” filed on October 31, 2022. (Doc. No. 150). The motion attaches 2 documents. (Id. at 2-4). Plaintiff's one line motion fails to comport with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7, it fails to identify the relevance of the documents, and fails to explain for what purpose Plaintiff seeks to file the two documents. The Court has repeatedly denied or struck similar deficient and improper pleadings and admonished Plaintiff for his recurring practice in filing such documents. See Doc. Nos. 26, 29, 45, 78, 79, 96, 97, 145.
On October 28, 2022, the Court issued Plaintiff a final warning: if he continued this abusive behavior, the undersigned would recommend that the district court dismiss this action as a final sanction. (Doc. No. 149 at 2). Despite the Court's continued and final warning, Plaintiff continues his practice of disregarding this Court's orders and the applicable procedural rules. For the reasons set forth in the Court's previous orders, the Court will strike Plaintiff's deficient motion. Prior to ruling on Defendants' motion and recommending a dismissal of this action as a sanction, the Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to respond.
ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED:
1. The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff's motion “to enter a classification committee chrono, and a medical classification chrono to the record.” (Doc. No. 150).
2. Plaintiff may file a response, if any, to Defendants' motion to dismiss this action incorporated in their omnibus response (Doc. No. 137 at pp. 14-16) and shall show cause why the undersigned should not recommend the district court dismiss this case as a sanction for Plaintiff's repeated disregard of this Court's orders and his abuse of the judicial process. Plaintiff shall deliver his response to correctional officials for mailing no later than December 19, 2022.