Hall v. State Farm Insurance et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of One Day to Present and Submit this Motion on Answering the Court and granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion to Answer the Court. See order for further details. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 3/8/18. Mailed to pro se party Rosemary Hall by regular and certified mail ; Certified Tracking Number: 7017 1000 0000 0699 6181. (hw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ROSEMARY HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM INSURANCE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-2491

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the court on two motions filed pro se by plaintiff (among other motions):
plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of One Day to Present and Submit this Motion on Answering the
Court (Doc. 23) and plaintiff’s Motion to Answer the Court (Doc. 24). Both motions appear to be filed
in response to an order to show cause issued by the court on January 10, 2018. The motions are
essentially unnecessary because plaintiff already responded to the court’s order to show cause on
January 12. But the court understands that there was some confusion created in the filing and timing
of the orders (two orders to show cause were entered on different dates, relating to different motions)
and the responses by plaintiff.
The court will grant plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 23) and will consider the
document filed January 19, 2018 (as well as the responses filed January 12, 2018) when ruling on
defendants’ motions to dismiss and to quash service. But the court denies without prejudice other
relief that plaintiff seeks in Doc. 24: namely, to assign a lawyer; to allow plaintiff “not to receive mail
on Mondays and Tuesdays”; and to “not mandate that [plaintiff have] a phone to communicate” and
“allow all conversations to be recorded.” These issues may be taken up as needed throughout the case.
The court notes that plaintiff has a motion to appoint an attorney pending, and that motion will be

-1-

considered in the ordinary course of business. As for the timing of plaintiff’s mail, if delayed mail
receipt becomes an issue, plaintiff may raise that issue again as needed. And as for phone
communication, this court does not anticipate communicating with plaintiff by phone. But to the
extent that the magistrate judge needs to communicate by phone, the court will allow the magistrate
judge to make his own determination of whether to require recording of the conversation or whether to
require phone usage at all. This court has noted the constraints indicated by plaintiff and will attempt
to consider them when issuing further orders in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of One Day to Present
and Submit this Motion on Answering the Court (Doc. 23) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Answer the Court (Doc. 24) is
granted in part and denied in part. The court will consider the response filed January 19, 2018 (as well
as the responses filed January 12, 2018) when ruling on defendants’ motions to dismiss and to quash
service. But the court denies without prejudice other relief that plaintiff seeks in Doc. 24: namely, to
assign a lawyer; to allow plaintiff “not to receive mail on Mondays and Tuesdays”; and to “not
mandate that [plaintiff have] a phone to communicate” and “allow all conversations to be recorded.”
These issues may be taken up as needed throughout the case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff has shown good cause why the court should not
grant defendants’ motions to dismiss and to quash service as uncontested and without the benefit of a
response by plaintiff. In considering and ruling on defendants’ motions (Docs. 10 and 13), the court
will consider the responses filed by plaintiff on January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018.
Dated this 8th day of March, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ Carlos Murguia______
CARLOS MURGUIA
United States District Judge

-2-