Coffman v. Hutchinson Community College

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Accept Statement of Facts Petition for 16.3 A.D.R.; denying 32 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Case (For Rule 5.6.4); denying 33 Plaintiff's Motion for 16.3 Alternative Dispute Resolutions. See Memorandum and Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 10/3/17. Mailed to pro se party Dustin D. Coffman by regular mail. (sj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DUSTIN D. COFFMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HUTCHINSON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 17-4070-SAC-GEB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to “Accept Statement Of
Facts Petition for 16.3 A.D.R.”(ECF No. 31); Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Case (“For Rule
5.6.4”) (ECF No. 32); and Plaintiff’s Motion for “16.3 Alternative Dispute Resolutions”
(ECF No. 33). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.

I.

Background
The factual and procedural background of this case was discussed in previous

orders and will not be repeated. Generally speaking, Plaintiff filed this case, acting pro
se, against Hutchinson Community College (“HCC”), claiming the school and certain of
its instructors and administrators violated his constitutional rights by dismissing him from
the college’s nursing program.
Since filing his case on August 7, 2017, Plaintiff has filed eleven motions for the
Court’s consideration. In the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and

Order of September 9, 2017, Plaintiff’s request for counsel and six other motions were
denied (Order, ECF No. 23). In addition to the motions decided by the Magistrate Judge,
the District Judge denied Plaintiff’s early motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19),
and recently granted in part and denied in part defendant HCC’s motion to dismiss
(Order, ECF No. 29).

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Accept Statement of Facts Petition for 16.3 A.D.R.
(ECF No. 31)
This motion consists of a one-sentence request for the Court to “have the attached

petition submitted and placed on the docket for review by the defense for the purpose of
16.3 alternative dispute resolution in this matter. . . .”

(ECF No. 31, at 1.)

No

attachments were included with the one-page motion. To the extent Plaintiff asks this
Court to accept his Complaint or other filed documents, the motion is DENIED AS
MOOT because Plaintiff’s filings have already been accepted and filed on the Court’s
electronic case filing system, and all documents filed on the electronic filing system are
available for Defendants’ review at any time. To the extent Plaintiff seeks some other
action by this Court, the motion is DENIED for failure to outline the specific relief
Plaintiff seeks.

III.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 5.6.4 (ECF No. 32)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 5.6.4 requests that “all court action in this case” be

sealed to “protect the states [sic] interests as to the state entity Hutchinson Community
College and its facility.” (ECF No. 32, at 1.) As an initial matter, the Court assumes

2

Plaintiff’s recitation of the rule is a typographical error, and he intends to cite D. Kan
Rule 5.4.6 regarding sealed documents. That rule outlines the procedure for request leave
to file documents under seal in civil cases. Aside from his stated intention to protect the
interests of HCC and the state, Plaintiff provides no other facts or arguments to support
his request.
But “federal courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial
records.”1 Such a right originates in the “public’s fundamental interest in understanding
disputes that are presented to a public forum for resolution.”2 To determine whether filed
documents, or an entire action, should be sealed from public viewing, “the Court weighs
the public interest, which it presumes is paramount, against the interests advanced by the
parties.”3 The party seeking to seal any portion of the record “must show that interests
which favor non-disclosure outweigh the public interest in access to court proceedings
and documents.”4 The movant “must articulate a real and substantial interest that justifies
depriving the public of access to the records that inform the Court’s decision-making
process,”5 not simply submit conclusory statements.

1

United States v. Smith, No. 12-20066-31-KHV, 2016 WL 1312518, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 4,
2016) (citing United States v. Apperson, No. 14-3069, 2016 WL 898885, at *6 (10th Cir. Mar. 9,
2016) (citing Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)).
2
Id. (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978); Crystal Grower's Corp. v.
Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980)).
3
Id. (citing Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011); Crystal Grower's, 616 F.2d
at 461).
4
Id. (citing Apperson, 2016 WL 898885, at *6; Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241
(10th Cir. 2012)).
5
Id. (citing Colony Ins., 698 F.3d at 1241; Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16
(1981)).
3

Other than his single statement professing a need to protect the college and/or the
state, Plaintiff provides no other basis or argument supporting his request to seal the court
record, and HCC has not requested to restrict access to the case. Plaintiff “does not
specifically explain how his interest in non-disclosure of the information outweighs the
public interest in open courts.”6 Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to seal is DENIED.

IV.

Plaintiff’s Motion for “16.3 Alternative Dispute Resolutions” (ECF No. 33)
In this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order alternative dispute resolution “in

the interest of saving money and in the protective interests of the State Entity of
Hutchinson Community College for settlement of these matters out of court” (ECF No.
33).

Plaintiff is correct that the Court must promote all parties’ interests in an

inexpensive and swift resolution of this lawsuit. However, as explained previously in this
Court’s Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 23) denying Plaintiff’s previous motion for
Rule 16.3 mediation (ECF No. 4), the topic of mediation will be discussed at the Rule 16
Scheduling Conference, which will be held after all parties to the case have entered their
appearances. Currently, all parties have not yet entered appearances in this case, and
Plaintiff’s motion is premature.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for “16.3 Alternative

Dispute Resolutions” (ECF No. 33) is DENIED as both moot and premature.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 31, 32, and
33) are DENIED as set forth above.

6

Id. (citing Apperson, 2016 WL 898885, at *7; Colony Ins., 698 F.3d at 1242).
4

The motions addressed herein are quite similar to earlier motions denied by the
Court on comparable bases (see Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 23). Once again,
Plaintiff is encouraged to review the District of Kansas Local Rules and Federal Rules,
and to thoroughly review the information for self-represented litigants on the Court’s
webpage at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/self-representation/, particularly the “Civil Case
Flowchart” and rules sections. Although he proceeds pro se, he is expected to follow the
Court’s rules and to refrain from frivolous and excessive filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 3rd day of October 2017.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
United States Magistrate Judge

5