Longoria v. Ventlemen et al

Filing 117

ORDER denying without prejudice 116 Plaintiff's Motion for Return of Money. The Court will be happy to address future requests, but those requests should be made with the propriety and decorum expected of a party addressing the federal courts. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/9/2013. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SALVADOR LONGORIA
Plaintiffs,
vs.
RANDY J. DAVIS, C/O PEYTON, C/O
HARBISON,
and
CHARLES
DINTLEMAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12–cv–0234–MJR–SCW

ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Salvador Longoria, who has appealed this Court’s grant of Defendants’ summary
judgment motion, has now filed a motion “asking the Court … to please send back any or all of Mr.
Longoria’s money back to him immediately.” It appears Mr. Longoria is upset at the withdrawal of
money from his trust fund account in order to pay the mandatory filing fee in this case (and perhaps
for his appeal).
The “motion” contains frivolous accusations and nonsensical vitriol lacking the civility this
Court demands of all parties. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. , 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (Federal
courts “are universally acknowledged to be vested…with power to impose silence, respect,
and decorum … in their presence.”). The Court will be happy to address requests made by Mr.
Longoria, but he should submit those requests with the propriety and decorum expected of a party
addressing the federal courts. His motion (Doc. 116) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 6, 2013

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge
1