Forte v. County of Merced et al
ORDER Striking Plaintiff's Statement of Scheduling Conference (Doc. 219) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.11(b) and 12(f). signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/30/2014. (Herman, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUGENE E. FORTE,
Case No. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
STATEMENT OF SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE (DOC. 219) PURSUANT
TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b) and 12(f)
COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,
On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff Eugene Forte filed a document entitled Statement of Scheduling
Conference Statement. (Doc. 219.) This filing is permeated with offensive commentary. Document
219 is HEREBY STRICKEN pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and 12(f).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) forbids a party from submitting a pleading, motion or
other paper for “any improper purpose, such as to harass.” Similarly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) permits the
Court, on its own motion, to strike from a pleading any scandalous matter.
The Court will not repeat the many vulgar comments contained in the filing. Over the last
three years, Mr. Forte‟s briefing style has evolved from one that distills relevant factual and legal
arguments, and excludes ad hominem attacks, to one that rarely considers the merits of a given issue,
and instead uses every briefing opportunity to substitute insulting behavior for legal argument.1 Such
tactics will no longer be tolerated.
Plaintiff is ADMONISHED that continued use of vulgar and abrasive language will result, at a
minimum, in those documents being stricken, and may result in sanctions up to and including
dismissal of this action with prejudice. See, Adams v. Nankervis, 902 F.2d 1578 (9th Cir. 1990)
(“Although dismissal was a drastic sanction, it was clearly appropriate . . . . [N]o court need tolerate
the use of obscene, indecent, and scandalous pleadings”) (citing, McDonald v. Head Criminal Court
Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121 (2d Cir.1988); See also, Sokolsky v. Rostron, 2009 WL 2705881
(E.D. Cal. 2009) (“plaintiff engages in name-calling and hyperbole, which the court does not
tolerate”); Alvarado Morales v. Digital Equipment Corporation, 669 F.Supp. 1173, 1187 (D.Puerto
Rico 1987) (“The federal courts do not provide a forum for mudslinging, name calling and „privileged‟
defamation.”); Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distributing Co., 961 F.2d 654, 664–65 (7th Cir.1992)
(scandalous portion of pleading may be stricken).
Document 219 is STRICKEN.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 30, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Compare, Doc. 50 (Mr. Forte‟s Motion to Continue the Hearings on Defendants‟ Motions to Dismiss
cite relevant legal principles, focus on the relevant facts, and otherwise demonstrate Mr. Forte is more
than capable of conducting himself in an appropriate manner), with Doc. 219 and 220 (Mr. Forte
completely omits legal or factual argument, meanders between the insulting and the irrelevant, and
refers to the judges of this Court as “whores,” “babes,” and “baboons.”
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?