Manago v. Williams, et al

Filing 148

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/20/11 DENYING 145 and 146 untimely discovery Motions. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

STEWART MANAGO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

No. 2:07-cv-2290 LKK KJN P

vs.

13

BRAD WILLIAMS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff has filed two discovery motions after the close of discovery. (Dkt. Nos.

17

145, 146.) As the court stated in its last order, discovery closed on February 24, 2011, and “[t]he

18

court will consider no further discovery motions.” (Dkt. No. 144 at 3.) The dispositive motion

19

deadline is May 20, 2011, and no further matters should be filed with the court except the parties’

20

dispositive motions and responses thereto. Plaintiff was previously warned that his extensive

21

filings in this case have posed a significant and often unwarranted burden on the court. As the

22

court stated in its order filed July 21, 2010 (Dkt. No. 93 at 14):

23
24
25
26

Plaintiff has, to date, filed fourteen cases in this court; all but the instant
case are now closed. This action has survived a motion to dismiss and
proceeds on the merits on potentially, facially compelling facts. However,
the progress of this case has been impeded by plaintiff’s frequent and often
legally frivolous filings. This action is not the only case before this court,
yet it has required an inordinate amount of the court’s time, often to
address superfluous matters.
1

Plaintiff is hereby formally cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma
pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it is determined
that he has filed excessive motions in a pending action. DeLong v.
Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878
F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). The court finds excessive the number of
matters plaintiff has filed to date and therefore due consideration will be
given whether to restrict plaintiff’s access to the court if he does not
exercise appropriate restraint in the future.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Plaintiff was reminded of this admonishment in the court’s order filed December 6, 2010 (Dkt.

7

No. 124, at 2-3), and invited to file a motion seeking appointment of counsel for the court’s

8

consideration (id. at 1 n.1, 13). Plaintiff ignored the court’s invitation, but has continued to

9

inundate the court with excessive filings, many of which have been legally frivolous or appear to

10

have been intended to harass defendants.
Plaintiff is now admonished that he is precluded from filing further discovery

11
12

motions in this action. Plaintiff should instead prepare and file any reasonable dispositive

13

motion, and/or await and prepare a timely responsive pleading to any dispositive motion that may

14

be filed by defendants. Failure to abide by this admonishment may result in the imposition of

15

monetary sanctions and/or pre-filing restrictions, or the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule

16

110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court

17

may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule

18

or within the inherent power of the Court.”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s untimely discovery

19
20

motions (Dkt. Nos. 145, 146) are denied.
SO ORDERED.

21
22

DATED: April 20, 2011

23
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26

mana2290.warn

2