Opinion
No. CIV S-11-826 GEB CKD PS
01-04-2012
TYRONE ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES EASLEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On December 30, 2011, plaintiff filed four motions: a motion to stay, a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, a motion for evidentiary hearing, and a motion for reconsideration. As with most of plaintiff's filings in this action, the motions are duplicative, do not cite relevant law, and make no attempt to make reasoned argument in support of the requested relief. The motions will therefore be denied.
Plaintiff has filed numerous pleadings since commencement of this action. Many of the pleadings are not pertinent to issues before the court, are duplicative, are not properly noticed for hearing, and do not advance meaningful argument. The multiplicity of plaintiff's filings are a burden on both the court and defendants and impede the proper prosecution and defense of this action. Plaintiff's future filings shall therefore be limited.
Calendared for hearing on January 25, 2012 are defendants' motions for sanctions and to dismiss. Plaintiff has filed opposition to these motions. No further opposition may be filed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The motions filed December 30, 2011 (dkt. nos. 78, 79, 80, 81) are denied.
2. Plaintiff's future filings are hereafter limited. Plaintiff may only file the following documents:
a. One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as such);
b. Only one motion pending at any time. Such motion must be properly noticed for hearing. Plaintiff is limited to one memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition; and
c. One set of objections to any findings and recommendations.
Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly filed documents being stricken from the record and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
____________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
adams.lim