Jones v. Google LLC, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motions at Doc. Nos. 34 , 35 , 35-1, and 36 are denied. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 4/22/2020. Mailed to pro se party Joseph Lee Jones by regular mail. (jal)

Case 5:18-cv-04032-SAC-GEB Document 37 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOSEPH LEE JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 18-4032-SAC-GEB

GOOGLE LLC, INC.,
Defendant.

O R D E R
This case is before the court upon plaintiff’s motion for
joinder (Doc. No. 34), plaintiff’s motion to strike judgment (Doc.
No. 35) which has attached a motion in support of delayed judgment
(Doc. No. 35-1), and plaintiff’s motion to strike or motion for
sanctions (Doc. No. 36). This case was dismissed on June 13, 2018.
Doc. No. 12.

The court denied plaintiff’s recently-filed motion

to alter or amend judgment on April 6, 2020.

Doc. No. 20.

Plaintiff’s motion for joinder shall be denied.
seeks to join this case with Case No. 20-3072.

Plaintiff

Both cases have

been dismissed. This case has been dismissed for almost two years.
Although the cases contain similar allegations, the court sees no
substantial benefit to joining the cases at this stage in their
proceedings.
Plaintiff’s motion to strike judgment (Doc. No. 35) and motion
in support of delayed judgment (Doc. No. 35-1) shall also be

1

Case 5:18-cv-04032-SAC-GEB Document 37 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 3

denied.

The motion to strike judgment appears to be targeted at

overturning the court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s attempt to
file an amended complaint.

As the court explained in Doc. No. 33,

the amended complaint was filed after the court entered judgment
against plaintiff and, therefore, the amended complaint – treated
as a motion to amend the complaint – could not be considered
without reopening the case.

The court further noted that if the

amended complaint were considered as a motion to amend or as a
motion for relief from judgment, the court would deny such relief
because the amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim.
Plaintiff’s motion to strike judgment and the attached motion in
support of delayed judgment do not support reopening the case or
amending the complaint.

They are denied.

Finally, plaintiff’s motion to strike or motion for sanctions
(Doc. No. 36) shall be denied.

Plaintiff appears to be asking

that any defense based upon defendant’s terms of service be
stricken.

Plaintiff mentions venue as one such defense.

The

court, however, dismissed this action on grounds separate from the
terms of service discussed in the motion.
strike appears to be moot.
generally disfavored.

So, the request to

Moreover, motions to strike are

Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 2005 WL

2219325 *1 (D.Kan. 9/13/2005).

Finally, plaintiff’s motion cites

no authority which warrants sanctions against defendant.

Instead,

the motion makes conclusory and at times confusing claims which
2

Case 5:18-cv-04032-SAC-GEB Document 37 Filed 04/22/20 Page 3 of 3

fail to assert adequate grounds to alter or amend the judgment in
this case.
In conclusion, plaintiff’s motions at Doc. Nos. 34, 35, 351, and 36 are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of April 2020, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow_____________
U.S. District Senior Judge

3