Fuller v. Olathe Police Department et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-If plaintiff continues to submit documents for filing in this case, the court intends to direct the Clerk's Office to mark them as "received" and send them to the undersigned's chambers for review before fili ng.If plaintiff objects to this process, he should file a specific written objection, not to exceed three pages, within fourteen days of the date of this order. If the court does not receive such objection from plaintiff within that time, the court will direct the Clerk's Office to follow this procedure in the future. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 10/18/2018. Mailed to pro se party Harold Glen Fuller by regular mail. (ydm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
HAROLD GLEN FULLER,
OLATHE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., )
Case No. 17-2580-CM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James entered a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that plaintiff’s pro se complaint be dismissed as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
Plaintiff failed to respond, and this court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full on
November 8, 2017 and dismissed the case. After the court dismissed the case, plaintiff requested a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 12). The court denied that motion on
March 9, 2018. Between January 2018 and June 2018, plaintiff filed additional documents that were
both incoherent and incomprehensible, but appeared to be for informational purposes and did not
clearly seek relief from this court (Docs. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, and 29). Plaintiff also
submitted several documents in July, August, and September 2018 that the clerk’s office marked as
received, but did not file because they did not appear to be proper pleadings. Those documents do not
present a comprehensible claim for relief in this closed case—a case that was dismissed nearly a year
ago as frivolous.
The court does not intend to file these documents or any similar ones received in this case. If
they were to be filed, the court would strike them as redundant, immaterial, and impertinent under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(f). The case is closed, and has been closed for nearly a year. There are very few avenues
for relief in this case that plaintiff could seek nearly a year after dismissal, and the documents he
continues to submit for filing are not proper filings in this case and do not warrant any type of relief.
If plaintiff continues to submit documents for filing in this case, the court intends to direct the
Clerk’s Office to mark them as “received” and send them to the undersigned’s chambers for review
before filing. Under this process, documents similar to those already presented likely will not be filed,
but will be retained for plaintiff to retrieve if he so desires. If plaintiff objects to this process, he
should file a specific written objection, not to exceed three pages, within fourteen days of the date of
this order. If the court does not receive such objection from plaintiff within that time, the court will
direct the Clerk’s Office to follow this procedure in the future.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of October, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Carlos Murguia__________________
United States District Judge
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?