MOODY v. LAHOOD et al

Filing 13

Order (1) Addressing Request to Permit Filing by Fax, (2) Directing Treatment of Documents, (3) Addressing Contact with Court Staff, and (4) Directing Further Proceedings. **SEE ORDER**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/6/2012. Copy Mailed.(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

GARY W. MOODY,

vs.
RAY LAHOOD, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )

1:12-cv-907-TWP-DML

Order (1) Addressing Request to Permit Filing by
Fax, (2) Directing Treatment of Documents, (3) Addressing
Contact with Court Staff, and (4) Directing Further Proceedings
As used in this Entry the term “2:49 Fax” refers to the 3-page enclosure
received by the clerk’s office at 2:49 p.m. on July 5, 2012, via a facsimile (“fax”) sent
by the plaintiff and the term “5:33 Fax” refers to the 1-page fax sent by the plaintiff
received by the clerk’s office at 5:33 p.m. on July 5, 2012.
I. Request to Permit Filing by Fax
The 2:49 Fax includes the plaintiff’s request that he be permitted to
temporarily file a motion by fax. That request is granted, consistent with the
following:
1.

The 2:49 Fax will be accepted for filing.

2.

The plaintiff may file the following categories of documents by fax:
a.

Amended pleadings;

b.

Motions; and

c.

Responses to court orders.

3.
Plaintiff will be permitted to file pleadings and motions in this case by
means of fax until 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 27, 2012, and not thereafter.

4.
The filing permitted by this Entry does not extend to documents or
materials except those categories of documents specified above. For example, the
submission of “evidence” by fax is not permitted by this Entry unless specifically
directed by the court. Documents or materials received by fax other than those
specified above will be returned unfiled with the notation: “Not authorized by court
order.”
5.
A copy of file stamped documents filed in conformity with paragraph 2
of this Entry shall be mailed to the plaintiff.
6.
Notification of rulings issued by the court will not be disseminated via
fax to the plaintiff, but instead, will be mailed.
7.
The specifications regarding facsimile filings may be modified by the
Court if warranted by circumstances.
II. Treatment of Documents
Consistent with the foregoing, the 2:49 Fax shall be filed and a file marked
copy included with the plaintiff’s copy of this Entry.
Also consistent with the foregoing, the 5:33 Fax that was received in the
court chambers shall be returned unfiled with the plaintiff’s copy of this Entry. The
5:33 Fax is not within the category of documents permitted to be filed by fax as the
5:33 Fax is a letter, nothing more. A letter is not a pleading or a motion and will not
be accepted as a substitute therefor.
III. Contact with Court Staff
The plaintiff was notified in the Entry of July 5, 2012, that court rulings are
entered on the clerk’s docket and that the plaintiff will be notified of such rulings as
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff may also make
reasonable inquiry of the clerk’s office from time to time to ascertain whether a
ruling has been made. He may do so in person in the clerk’s office lobby in any of
the four divisional offices and may do so by telephone during regular office hours.
As a general rule, telephone calls are not returned, so there should be no contrary
expectation. In addition, email communication between court staff and a litigant or
others is inappropriate except when directed by the court. No such arrangements
have been authorized in this case.
What can be expected from court staff in the course of litigation is
information about a specific case—information accessible from the docket—and in
some instances general information about court operations, such as location,
facilities, limits on the use of recording and other electronic equipment, and so

forth. For general questions about the litigation process the office of the staff
attorney may be contacted. This is sometimes known as the pro se office and can be
reached at 317-229-3950. There is also a library available to the public in the
Courthouse in Indianapolis, and the court has a website which has information and
links to several resources. The court’s website is www.insd.uscourts.gov.
IV. Further Proceedings
The 2:49 Fax will be docketed as titled, that being “Emergency Motion to
Correct Error; Motion to Withdraw Prior Motion for Review; Motion to Allow
Temporary Filing by Fax.”
A.
Once docketed, the Motion to Allow Temporary Filing by Fax is granted in
part and denied in part as specified in Part II of this Entry, the Motion to
Withdraw Prior Motion for Review is granted, and the Motion for Emergency
Review [Dkt. 9] is denied as withdrawn.
B.
As to the Motion to Correct Error, it is based on the plaintiff’s mistaking the
decision of District Judge Gilbert for the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals as cited in the Entry of July 3, 2012. The citation of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)—applicable to all in forma pauperis proceedings, unlike the more
narrow 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)—is precisely correct as intended and as written. See
Jaros v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 2012 WL 2552125 (7th Cir. July 3,
2012).
The Emergency Motion to Correct Error is treated as a motion to reconsider.
See Peterson v. Lindner, 765 F.2d 698, 704 (7th Cir. 1985)(a district court clearly
has the “inherent power to modify or rescind interlocutory orders prior to final
judgment”). As so treated, the Emergency Motion to Correct Error is denied. See
Patel v. Gonzales 442 F.3d 1011, 1015-1016 (7th Cir. 2006) (“A motion to reconsider
asks that a decision be reexamined in light of additional legal arguments, a change
of law, or an argument that was overlooked earlier . . . .”).
C.
The plaintiff has been apprised of the process required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). The court will continue to engage that process with dispatch.
Appropriate attention is being paid to plaintiffs’ motion and an appropriate order
will follow.

D.
The court has set forth instructions regarding Contact with Court Staff in
Part III of this Entry so that plaintiff can be fully informed about access to the
court’s staff. Further, district judges—and by extension the court’s staff—are not
allowed to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S.
225, 231 (2004). This rule, as well as the court’s role as an impartial forum and the
nature of adversarial litigation, prevents the court from providing legal advice to a
plaintiff or to any other litigant. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 552 (7th
Cir. 2005).
Every effort must be made to respect the limits associated with the foregoing.
Any other course is unacceptable. “Once a party invokes the judicial system by filing
a lawsuit, it must abide by the rules of the court . . . .” James v. McDonald’s Corp.,
417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005)(citing GCIU Employer Ret. Fund v. Chicago
Tribune Co., 8 F.3d 1195, 1198-99 (7th Cir. 1993))(internal quotations omitted).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

07/06/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
GARY W. MOODY
299 1/2 Madison Street
Franklin, IN 46131

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana