Forte v. Hughes et al
Filing
106
ORDER re Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application 102 , 104 , 105 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/21/16. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
EUGENE FORTE,
6
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION (Docs. 102, 104, 105)
Plaintiff,
7
8
1:13-cv-1980-LJO-MJS
v.
TIMOTHY SCHWARTZ,
9
Defendant.
10
11
The Court recently denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application in which he requested that the Court
12
13 order the Clerk of Court to issue him subpoenas. Doc. 101 at 2. The Court found that Plaintiff’s request
14 was not limited to a request for subpoenas ordering witnesses’ attendance at trial, but rather appeared to
15 request subpoenas for discovery purposes. Id.
Plaintiff now clarifies that he requests subpoenas only to compel the attendance of trial
16
17 witnesses. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court SHALL issue Plaintiff subpoenas to
18 compel the attendance of witnesses at the trial set to commence on February 7, 2017. The Court
19 emphasizes that there will be no further discovery trial, nor will it recommence during the trial. Any
20 attempt to do so will be a direct violation of the Court’s orders, will be stopped immediately, and will be
21 grounds for sanctions.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s recent filings contain contemptuous and accusatory
22
23 language. Specifically, Plaintiff states, among other things, that:
24
“Judge O’Neill tosses a smut ball at Forte saying in essence that Forte was attempting to re-open
discovery that he was told he was not entitled to do.” Doc. 102 at 2:8-10.
25
1
“Judge O’Neill striking Forte’s Doc. #23 that put on record the judicial trickery of the court
prejudicing his case is in plaintiff’s opinion why Judge O’Neill struck Doc. #23. There was
nothing offensive in the document but the truth is shameful to any ethical jurist.” Id. at 2:17-3:4.
“Therefore, Judge O’Neill would be aware of Forte’s repeated allegations of the connection
between Judge Ishii, Magistrate McAuliffe, Judge O’Neill and Magistrate Snyder involved in
perpetrating a ‘fraud upon the court’ by a ‘fraud by the court’ when he struck Doc. #23 that
contained such allegations.”
“JUDGE O’NEILL HAS LOST ALL CREDIBILITY AND THERE IS AN APPEARANCE OF
BIAS.” Id. at 4:4-5 (emphasis in original).
9
“Regrettably, in plaintiff’s opinion and based upon the record, Judge O’Neill’s statements at the
pretrial conference of 12/15/2016 reveal that he is far less than an impartial jurist (which will be
addressed in detail in a Disqualification Motion that will be filed in this case). It shows that
Judge O’Neill is intentionally concealing his knowledge of the facts that would require his
disqualification.”
10
The Court will not permit any further accusations and statements of disrespect directed at the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11 Court. If Plaintiff thinks this language is appropriate for appellate reasons, that is an issue for the Ninth
12 Circuit. This is Plaintiff’s only warning. Further, such misconduct will result in an order to show cause.
13 Plaintiff needs to know that remedies for contempt including dismissal of his case, monetary sanctions,
14 and/or custody.
15
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
December 21, 2016
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
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?