Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-cv-00241-WYD-BNB.
November 8, 2005
ORDER
This matter is before me on the following motions (the "Motions"):
(1) Plaintiff's "Pro Se" Motion for Settlement with Defendants, filed August 19, 2005;
(2) Plaintiff's "Pro Se" Motion Demanding this Court to Provide Legal Authorities, filed August 19, 2005; and
(3) Plaintiff's "Pro Se" Motion Demanding this Court to Order July, 19, 2005 Deposition, filed September 6, 2005. For the following reasons, the Motions are DENIED.
As a preliminary matter, the Motions repeatedly refer to the Court as "prejudiced." I will not tolerate the plaintiff's contumacious language and conduct, and it must stop. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.
Plaintiff's "Pro Se" Motion for Settlement with Defendants
The plaintiff requests that the defendants settle this case for $150,000.00. He further "demands this prejudiced court grants [sic] his motion." Motion, p. 3. A court cannot impose a settlement on the parties. Accordingly, the plaintiff's request is DENIED.
The plaintiff does not request a settlement conference. If the parties want to schedule a settlement conference, they may file a written motion with the court.
Plaintiff's "Pro Se" Motion Demanding this Court to Provide Legal Authorities
The plaintiff demands that the court provide him with legal authority for requiring him to limit the title of his motions to ten words or less. See Order issued July 19, 2005. The plaintiff's demand is DENIED.
Plaintiff's "Pro Se" Motion Demanding this Court to Order July, 19, 2005 Deposition
The plaintiff demands that the court provide him with a copy of the transcript of a deposition taken on July 19, 2005. The plaintiff does not specifically request that the court pay for the costs of the requested transcript although he is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To the extent the plaintiff is asking the court to pay the costs of the transcript, it can be granted only if I am satisfied that the request is reasonable. See Burgess v. Andrews, 657 F. Supp. 1153, 1157 (W.D.N.C. 1987).
It appears that the plaintiff is seeking a transcript of his own deposition testimony, taken by the defendants some time after June 17, 2005. See Order issued June 17, 2005; Motion, tenth consecutive page.
The plaintiff does not explain why he needs a copy of the transcript. Instead, he provides eighteen pages of handwritten, single-spaced gibberish — none of which appears to be relevant to his request.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motions are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall cease his use of contumacious language.