COE et al v. HOLDER et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Robert L. Wilkins on 7/19/2013. (tcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MORRIS COE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 13-cv-184 (RLW)

ERIC HIMPTON HOLDER, JR.,
Attorney General of
the United States, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1
The Clerk’s Office of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has received
three documents from the Plaintiffs in this matter filed in violation of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and/or a previous Order of this Court. One purports to
be a motion for default judgment, but it relates to a party for which no summons has been
issued. A second purports to be a motion for reconsideration, but it lacks a valid certificate of
service. 2 And the third is a draft amended complaint, although this Court previously ordered
that to file a draft amended complaint Plaintiffs need to file a Motion for Leave to Amend.
(See Dkt. No. 10).
1

This unpublished memorandum opinion is intended solely to inform the parties and any
reviewing court of the basis for the instant ruling, or alternatively, to assist in any potential
future analysis of the res judicata, law of the case, or preclusive effect of the ruling. The Court
has designated this opinion as “not intended for publication,” but this Court cannot prevent or
prohibit the publication of this opinion in the various and sundry electronic and legal databases
(as it is a public document), and this Court cannot prevent or prohibit the citation of this
opinion by counsel. Cf. FED. R. APP. P. 32.1. Nonetheless, as stated in the operational
handbook adopted by our Court of Appeals, “counsel are reminded that the Court’s decision to
issue an unpublished disposition means that the Court sees no precedential value in that
disposition.” D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 43 (2011).
2
It should also be noted that the purported motion for reconsideration misreads Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which states that a pleading may be amended as a matter of
right within 21 days of service of a motion under Rule 12(b), not within 21 days of receipt of
such a motion.
1

While materials filed by pro se litigants are generally held to less stringent standards
than those applied to formal documents drafted by lawyers, even pro se litigants must comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656
F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Plaintiffs have already been put on notice by this Court that
they need to comply with the Rules, but they continue to fail to do so. And this is on top of the
fact that, when this Court notifies Plaintiffs about developments in this matter by mailing out
rulings to the addresses on file, many of the mailings are returned as undeliverable, another
violation of the Rules. See LCvR 11.1 (“Notice of change in address or telephone number of
an attorney or a party not represented by an attorney must be filed within 14 days of the
change.”).
If Plaintiffs intend to pursue their claims in this matter, they must do so in compliance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and rulings issued by this
Court. To date, they have failed repeatedly to do so. Accordingly, leave to file for the
documents presented by Plaintiffs in violation of the Rules is hereby DENIED.

Digitally signed by Judge Robert L.
Wilkins
DN: cn=Judge Robert L. Wilkins,
o=U.S. District Court, ou=Chambers
of Honorable Robert L. Wilkins,
email=[e-mail], c=US
Date: 2013.07.19 09:46:32 -04'00'

Date: July 19, 2013

ROBERT L. WILKINS
United States District Judge

2