Preston v. Public Storage, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER granting 47 construed Motion to Strike 48 Second Amended Complaint, and Motion to Strike 46 Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 7/1/2015. (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ANNE PRESTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:12-CV-2288-T-17TGW

PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 46
Dkt. 47
Dkt. 48

Amended Complaint
Motion to Strike Amended Complaint
Second Amended Complaint

Defendants move to strike the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2), as the Amended Complaint was filed without Defendants’ consent and without
leave of court. Defendants also request that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion to
Strike in that this case, as well as the related case [Case No. 8:12-CV-2287-T-17MAP]
were closed two and a half years ago, when the Court dismissed the cases pursuant to
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Plaintiff Anne Preston is proceeding gro se in this case.

Plaintiff Preston has

not filed a response to the Motion to Strike.
I. Background

The Court previously dismissed this case without prejudice pursuant to the

Case No. 8:12-CV-2288-T-17TGW
Rooker-Feldman doctrine on December 27, 2012 (Dkt. 17), and closed the case.
Subsequent Motions for Reconsideration (Dkts. 19, 22) were denied (Dkt. 25). The
Court explained the basis for the Court’s rulings in those Orders. The Court denied
Plaintiffs Motion to Stay (Dkt. 26), again explaining that this Court does not have
jurisdiction (Dkt. 27). The Court has also denied Plaintiffs Motion to Reopen (Dkt. 30),
for Reconsideration (Dkt. 32) and for Clarification (Dkt. 34). (Dkts. 31, 33, 35). The
Court further denied Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Reopen (Dkt. 36), Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. 38), Second Amended Motion to Reopen (Dkt. 40), Third
Amended Motion to Reopen (Dkt. 42), and Amended Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 44).
(Dkts. 37, 39, 41, 43, 45).

II. Standard of Review
A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) provides:

(f) Motion to Strike. The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter....”
In reviewing a Motion to Strike, “a court will not exercise its discretion ... unless
the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may
confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Dennis v. Northwestern Mutual Life
Ins. Co.. 2006 WL 1000308 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (citing Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
216 F.R.D. 689, 691 (M.D. Fla. 2003)).
B. Pro Se Status

“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
2

Case No. 8:12-CV-2288-T-17TGW
attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States. 148
F.3d 1262,1263 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam). See Trawinski v. United Technologies.
313 F.3d 1295,1297 -1298 (11th Cir. 2002). Although the Court gives liberal
construction to the pleadings of gro se litigants, “[the Court] nevertheless ha[s] required
them to conform to procedural rules.” Loren v. Sasser. 309 F.3d 1296,1304 (11th Cir.
2002).

III. Discussion

The Court construes Defendants’ Motion to Strike to apply to the Second
Amended Complaint as well as the Amended Complaint.

It is undisputed that Defendants did not consent to the filing of the Amended
Complaint, and the Court did not grant leave to Plaintiff to file the Amended Complaint.
The Court dismissed this case without prejudice, and has denied Plaintiffs Motions to
Reopen, and for Reconsideration.
the denial of Plaintiffs Motions.

The Court has repeatedly explained the basis for
Because Plaintiff Preston filed the Amended

Complaint without Defendants’ consent, and without leave of court, the Court grants
Defendants’ Motion to Strike.
This case was closed in December, 2012, and remains closed. Plaintiff Preston
has refused to accept the finality of the Court’s decisions, yet has not sought to appeal
those decisions. The Court does not know how to make it any clearer that this
Court does not have the power to rule on Plaintiff’s complaints against
Defendants. The Court reminds Plaintiff Preston that jaro se parties are subject to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of
Florida. The Court draws Plaintiff’s attention to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).

3

Case No. 8:12-CV-2288-T-17TGW
The Court notifies Plaintiff Preston that there are resources available on the
Court’s website to assist gro se parties, and the Local Rules of the Middle District of
Florida are available on the Court’s website, www.flmd.uscourts.aov. The Court
directs Plaintiff Preston to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida in the future. Failure to comply
may have adverse consequences.

The Court notifies Plaintiff Preston that should Plaintiff Preston continue to file
frivolous motions that have no chance of success, and should Plaintiff Preston continue
to file pleadings such as the Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint,
both of which were filed without consent and without leave of court in a closed case, the
Court will consider the imposition of a monetary sanction to deter Plaintiff Preston from
continuing that conduct. It is possible that Plaintiff may forfeit the privilege of litigating
without prefiling review of documents that Plaintiff Preston may want to file in the future,
or Plaintiff Preston may be denied leave to file documents in this district until any
monetary sanction that is imposed is paid. While the Court looks first to Fed. R. Civ. P.
11, the Court has inherent authority to manage its docket. Chambers v. Nasco. 501
U.S. 32 (1991). Although the Court has repeatedly explained that this Court does not
have jurisdiction, Plaintiff did not seek review of the Court’s previous Orders in the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and has continued to seek relief that this Court
cannot grant. The pattern of Plaintiffs repeated requests for relief after the Court has
denied the same motions smacks of bad faith. Plaintiff’s motions and pleadings appear
to be filed to harass Defendants, and Plaintiffs frivolous motions and pleadings waste
the Court’s scarce resources. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff Preston is proceeding
pro se; however, pro se parties are subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff Preston has had her day in court, but Plaintiff Preston is not entitled to anyone
else’s day in court. In the event that Plaintiff Preston continues to file motions and
pleadings in this closed case, the Court will enter an order to show cause, and schedule
a hearing to determine the issue of bad faith. Accordingly, it is

Case No. 8:12-CV-2288-T-17TGW
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Dkt. 47) is granted. The
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 46) and Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 48) are stricken
from the docket. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff Preston shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. Failure to comply may
have adverse consequences, as noted above.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida on this / “S ^cfay of July,
2015.

5