Opinion
8:21-cv-2171-TPB-TGW
05-02-2023
JAMES R. NEWCOME and UMAMA J. NEWCOME, Plaintiffs, v. HERNANDO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. “District courts ‘possess certain inherent powers, not conferred by rule or statute, to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. That authority includes the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.'” Fuery v. City of Chicago, 900 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S.Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017)). “Disrespectful, rude, and disruptive behavior cannot be tolerated.” Martin v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00693-JMS-MG, 2022 WL 1093516, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 12, 2022) (citing Fuery, 900 F.3d at 463)).
The Court is mindful that Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. However, it is well-established that pro se litigants are not given carte blanche to engage in bad behavior or abusive practices. It has come to the Court's attention that Plaintiffs, on several occasions, have engaged in abusive verbal harassment during phone calls to the Clerk's Office and Chambers. Plaintiffs are warned that if they continue to make harassing or abusive phone calls, sanctions are available to deter such conduct, including the ability to restrict telephonic communications, strike pleadings, impose monetary sanctions, and the power of contempt. See, e.g., Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261-62 (2d Cir. 1984)) (“Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.”); Bittle v. N.C. Unemployment Div. Pandemic, No. 3:22-cv-00499-FDW-DSC, 2022 WL 15524652, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Oct. 27, 2022); Rusk v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00853-JNP-PMW, 2016 WL 3079713, at *1 (D. Utah May 31, 2016); Delman v. Friedman, No. Civ.99-20834SW, 2000 WL 1056335, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2000).