Collins v. Seago et al

Filing 10

RULING denying 8 Motion to Compel Clerk of Court to Create Docket Entry Labeled Exactly as Is Petitioned Herein and to Create ECR Hyperlinks Now and Henceforth as They Are Requested by Pltf to be Hyperlinked. Pltf is cautioned that intentionally filing irrelevant materials in the court record may result in the imposition of sanctions as provided by FRCP 11. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 4/14/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

FRANCIS A. COLLINS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 11-130-JJB-SCR
MICHAEL SEAGO, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL CLERK OF COURT
TO CREATE DOCKET ENTRY AND HYPERLINKS
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Clerk of
Court to Create a Docket Entry Labeled Exactly as Is Petitioned
Herein and to Create ECR Hyperlinks Now and Henceforth as They Are
Requested by Plaintiff to Be Hyperlinked.

Record document number

8.
In this motion the plaintiff seeks an order requiring the
Clerk of Court to make a docket entry exactly as demanded by the
plaintiff and to create a hyperlink in the docket entry such that
the document (an exhibit) is directly accessible to the news media
via PACER.

Although not demanded explicitly in the motion, the

title of the motion indicates that the plaintiff also wants the
Clerk of Court to create docket entry hyperlinks in the future.
There

is

no

requirement

in

the

court’s

Administrative

Procedures for Filing Electronic Documents which requires the Clerk
of Court to create hyperlinks to an exhibit filed with another
document by a party who is proceeding pro se.

The Administrative

Procedures require that pro se parties file paper originals, which

will be scanned into an electronic file by someone in the clerk’s
office.

The docket sheet entry is made by a person in the clerk’s

office.

The docket sheet entry will hyperlink to the document,

e.g., a motion.

The document may include a supporting memorandum,

exhibits or a proposed order. The Administrative Procedures do not
require the Clerk of Court to create a separate hyperlink on the
docket sheet to other such papers which are part of the document.
All other papers filed with the document are accessible via the
hyperlink

to

the

document.

Although

separate

hyperlinks

to

memoranda and exhibits are often provided by attorneys filing
documents electronically, the clerk of court is not required to
create them for pro se parties.
Nor is there any provision in the Administrative Procedures
which allows a pro se party to demand that a docket entry read a
particular way.
of

the

document

So long as the docket entry identifies the nature
and

on

whose

behalf

it

was

filed,

that

is

sufficient.
Insofar as the plaintiff is concerned that members of the news
media and other should have ready access to his filings via PACER,
the plaintiff may advise anyone else and the news media when he
files something which he believes warrants their attention.
Finally, it is not apparent how the exhibit which is the
subject of this motion is relevant to the RICO claim asserted in

2

the plaintiff’s Complaint.1

The case record is not a file cabinet

where the party can store irrelevant materials so they can be more
easily available others.

Nor is the court’s electronic filing

system intended to serve as a means of dissemination of opinions
not relevant to the issues in a particular case.2
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Clerk of Court
to Create a Docket Entry Labeled Exactly as Is Petitioned Herein
and to Create ECR Hyperlinks Now and Henceforth as They Are
Requested by Plaintiff to Be Hyperlinked is denied.
Plaintiff is cautioned that intentionally filing irrelevant
materials in the court record may result in the imposition of
sanctions as provided by Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 14, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

The title of the exhibit is “Bell Curve Graphic Depicting
Time Frame of The Restoration of Democracy, Constitutional
Government and the Good Order of Society in The United States of
America.”
2

For the purpose of ruling on this motion, it is not
necessary to address the plaintiff’s remarks about alleged criminal
violations by various persons (including the undersigned and two
district judges), or his remarks about the President of the United
States of America, or his demand that the district judge assigned
to this case must pay him “my billion dollars right now,” or his
other remarks which are not relevant to the relief sought in the
motion.
3