Opinion
Case No. 10-02785 Case No. 10-02817
06-21-2012
THEAQUIATA ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. TIPTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. and TIPTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, v. THEAQUIATA ROBINSON, next friend of T.R., and BERNARD TYRUS STURGIS, Defendants.
ORDER SETTING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
On June 18, 2012, the court held an on-the-record telephone conference in these consolidated cases with pro se party Theaquiata Robinson, counsel for Tipton County Board of Education ("Tipton"), and Bernard Tyrus Sturgis, who is Robinson's former attorney and a named Defendant in Case Number 10-02817. The conference was continued from the court's prior telephone conference with Robinson and counsel for Tipton on May 11, 2012, to afford Robinson the opportunity to obtain counsel.
During the conference, Robinson informed the court that she is still working on securing representation in these matters. Moreover, Robinson seems unfamiliar with, and unsure about the origins of, papers already filed in these actions that bear her signature—namely, her response to Tipton's motion for judgment on the administrative record in Case Number 10-02785, a joint motion to dismiss by her and Sturgis in Case Number 10-02817, and her response to Tipton's motion for judgment on the pleadings in Case Number 10-02817.
The court's suspicion, albeit unconfirmed, is that Sturgis, who is not admitted to practice in the Western District of Tennessee, improperly filed these documents on Robinson's behalf and without her knowledge.
Additionally, in Case Number 10-02817, Sturgis has yet to indicate on the court's docket whether he is proceeding pro se or through counsel. If he does wish to represent himself, as he did during the telephone conference, he must add his contact information to the court's docket. It is also unclear whether Sturgis still wishes to pursue the joint motion to dismiss or join Robinson's response to Tipton's motion for judgment on pleadings.
The motion to dismiss, which was filed on January 14, 2011, and to which Tipton responded on January 24, 2011, appears never to have been decided by the court; however, it was terminated—perhaps mistakenly—on the court's docket on May 2, 2011.
--------
In light of the apparent confusion regarding these matters, the court will again continue the telephone conference to give Robinson and Sturgis more time to review the record and decide how they wish to proceed in these matters. However, the court notes that it will not grant another, similar continuance. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall participate in a telephone conference on July 2, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. EDT. The court will place the telephone call. If either Robinson or Sturgis wishes to be represented by counsel, their attorneys must file an appearance on the record no later than June 29, 2012. If Sturgis intends to proceed pro se, he must so indicate on the court's docket and enter his contact information by that same date.
During the conference, Robinson (or her attorney) should be prepared to inform the court whether she wishes to adopt, modify, or abandon: (1) in Case Number 10-02785, "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record" [Dkt. # 48]; (2) in Case Number 10-02817, the "Joint Motion to Dismiss" [Dkt. # 4]; and (3) in Case Number 10-02817, the "Response to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings" [Dkt. # 15]. Similarly, Sturgis (or his attorney) should be prepared to inform the court whether, in Case Number 10-02817, he intends to pursue the "Joint Motion to Dismiss" [Dkt. # 4] and whether he wishes to adopt the "Response to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings" [Dkt. # 15].
_________________________
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, June 21, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Lisa G. Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522