Johnson v. United States of America et al

Filing 273

Order by Hon. James Donato denying 270 Request for Leave and terminating 272 Motion re 269 Declaration. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD
ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 270, 272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15

The Court terminates Plaintiff’s Motion re the Declaration of Margaret Baumgartner (Dkt.
No. 272). The Court has already addressed the relevant issues. Dkt. No. 271.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s Request to file a “Motion of Reconsideration on a Number of

16

the Issues the Court Ruled on March 16, 2016.” Dkt. No. 270. It rehashes arguments that plaintiff

17

has already raised many times before, including at the last hearing on March 16, 2016. For

18

example, plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its holdings on various discovery issues and

19

plaintiff’s ability to use an expert who is conflicted out of this matter. Plaintiff returns to the

20

unavailability of a jury trial in this Federal Tort Claims Act case, which is a result required by

21

statute. For the most part, plaintiff simply insists again in the Request that his prior arguments

22

were right and that the Court should change its rulings. The Court has turned down this invitation

23

on several occasions and does so again now. Plaintiff has not tendered any new facts or law that

24

warrant reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b), (c). The Request is denied.

25

On a separate note, the Court is concerned about plaintiff’s ongoing use of derogatory and

26

pejorative language about opposing counsel and to a lesser extent the Court. The Court has

27

previously advised plaintiff about the standards of civility and courtesy required of all of litigants

28

in this Court. Plaintiff has been specifically cautioned that the Court may strike “any future filings

1

that include personal attacks on the parties, lawyers or Judges.” Dkt. No. 218 at 2. The Court

2

reiterates that caution here and advises plaintiff again that future filings with offensive or

3

disparaging comments about the defendant’s counsel or any others are likely to be stricken from

4

the case record for failure to comply with the Court’s repeated instructions.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2016

7
8
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2