SHARKEY v. COCHRAN et al
ENTRY AND NOTICE - The plaintiff's recent filings are little short of an open mockery. Because the statements filed on June 7 and 8, 2012 70 and 71 , are not entirely in English, lack a translation, and lack a coherent statement of reason able specification for the relief sought, any relief which may be sought in such statements is denied. Those filings will remain in the record, but are of no effect. The ruling of May 18, 2012, regarding the plaintiff's obligation to appear in person at the proceedings to be conducted on June 18, 2012, remains in effect. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/12/2012. (copy to Plaintiff and Mr. Williams via US Mail)(JKS) Modified on 6/13/2012 (JKS).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MEGAN COCHRAN, et al.,
Entry and Notice
“The Court is unaware of any provisions of law that either prohibit or permit
the filing of pleadings in languages other than English.” Calderon v. Woodford, 2009
WL 3381035 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 19, 2009). However, “[b]riefs should be written in the
English language!” Gottreich v. S.F. Inv. Corp., 552 F.2d 866, 867 n.2 (9th Cir. 1977),
and it is certainly a litigant’s responsibility to present papers in an understandable
fashion, as plaintiff Sharkey has done without apparent difficulty until recently. See
Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, 445 F.3d 19, 24 (1st Cir. 2006) (“In the past, we
have refused to consider materials submitted to the court in any language other than
English, and we continue to do so.”).
There is more.
Motions require reasons. Rule 7(b)(1) states in relevant part, "An application
to the court for an order shall be made by motion which, unless made during a
hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds
therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought." Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1). In the
Seventh Circuit, "particularity" has been interpreted to mean "reasonable
specification." Talano v. Northwestern Med. Faculty Found., Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 760
(7th Cir. 2001). Materials not presented in the English language and not
accompanied by an appropriate translation of non-English materials fail to convey
reasons for awarding any relief.
The plaintiff’s recent filings are little short of an open mockery. The plaintiff is
reminded that “[t]he judicial forum is a place in which serious people attend to
serious business.” Morris v. Jenkins, 819 F.2d 678, 682 (7th Cir. 1987). The plaintiff
chose to bring his claim in this forum, and that choice requires adherence to the
foregoing and all other applicable rules that govern proceedings in this court.
Because the statements filed on June 7 and 8, 2012 [70 and 71], are not
entirely in English, lack a translation, and lack a coherent statement of reasonable
specification for the relief sought, any relief which may be sought in such statements
is denied. Those filings will remain in the record, but are of no effect.
The ruling of May 18, 2012, regarding the plaintiff’s obligation to appear in
person at the proceedings to be conducted on June 18, 2012, remains in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
All Electronically Registered Counsel
c/o The Impaler for President
5470 East Busch Blvd. #192
Temple Terrace, FL 33617
MATTHEW PAUL WILLIAMS
2015 Brandywine Lane
Martinsville, IN 46151
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?