Clayton v. Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/2/15. (bcw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ALEXANDRIA M. CLAYTON,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

V.

)

Case No. CV415-093

)

THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF
THE CITY OF SAVANNAH,' et al.,

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER
The Court GRANTS the defendants' unopposed motion to stay
this employment discrimination case until the district judge resolves the
pending defense motions to dismiss. Doc. 12. In addition, the Court
DEFERS to the district judge plaintiff's motion for leave to file her third
amended complaint. 2 Doc. 13. As the defense briefs (does. 18 & 20)
Plaintiff named, among others, the Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police
Department as a defendant. As the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah
("the City") points out, doe. 18 at 1, the substance of plaintiffs pleadings show that
she means to sue the City, so the Court is substituting it and amending the caption
here. All subsequent filings shall conform. The City also reminds, however, that it is
contesting whether it is proper party to this action. Id. at 3 n. 1.
1

Clayton also has been filing "bad scans" with this Court. See, e.g., does. 13 & 15.
Every E-filed document should be "machine readable" because it enables users to
search it using key words, and also mark and copy text from it. Producing a
2

contending futility demonstrate, the district judge's examination of the
merits of plaintiff's claims will immediately inform whether the proposed
amendments would be futile. Given that inextricable intertwinement, it
makes sense to defer the amendment motion (doc.13).
SO ORDERED, this Jfday of September, 2015.

JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

"machine readable" .pdf file, which is required for E-filing, is easy. Most word
processors have a "publish to .pdf' or "print to .pdf' drop-down option under a
"File," then "Print" command. Counsel should use that feature, which produces a
machine-readable .pdf.
Parties must not print out a document and then run it through a mechanical
scanner, which counsel here apparently has been doing (his E-filings have not been
machine readable, thus hampering Court operations). That method fails to produce a
machine-readable .pdf. Counsel should contact the Clerk's office should additional
guidance be needed. The Court ORDERS Clayton's counsel to comply with this
directive, which applies to all E-filers before this Court.

2