Adams v. Easley et al

Filing 87

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/4/2012 ORDERING that the motions filed December 30, 2011 (dkt. nos. 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 ) are DENIED. Plaintiff's future filings are hereafter limited. Plaintiff may only file the follow ing documents: One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as such); 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 s upport of the motion and one reply to any opposition; and 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. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TYRONE ADAMS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV S-11-826 GEB CKD PS

vs.
CHARLES EASLEY, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15

/

16

On December 30, 2011, plaintiff filed four motions: a motion to stay, a motion

17

for leave to file an amended complaint, a motion for evidentiary hearing, and a motion for

18

reconsideration. As with most of plaintiff’s filings in this action, the motions are duplicative, do

19

not cite relevant law, and make no attempt to make reasoned argument in support of the

20

requested relief. The motions will therefore be denied.

21

Plaintiff has filed numerous pleadings since commencement of this action. Many

22

of the pleadings are not pertinent to issues before the court, are duplicative, are not properly

23

noticed for hearing, and do not advance meaningful argument. The multiplicity of plaintiff’s

24

filings are a burden on both the court and defendants and impede the proper prosecution and

25

////

26

1

defense of this action. Plaintiff’s future filings shall therefore be limited.1

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The motions filed December 30, 2011 (dkt. nos. 78, 79, 80, 81) are denied.

4

2. Plaintiff’s future filings are hereafter limited. Plaintiff may only file the

5

following documents:

6
7

a. One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as
such);

8
9
10

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

11

c. One set of objections to any findings and recommendations.

12
13

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.

14

Dated: January 4, 2012

15

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
4

18

adams.lim

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26

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.
2