Bormuth v. Jackson, City of et al

Filing 48

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Limit Ex Parte Communications with Court Staff. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Email of 7/25/12, # 2 Exhibit B Email of 7/28/12, # 3 Exhibit C Email of 7/28/12, # 4 Exhibit D Email of 7/30/12, # 5 Exhibit E Email of 7/30/12, # 6 Exhibit F Email of 7/30/12, # 7 Exhibit G Email of 7/30/12, # 8 Exhibit H Email of 7/30/12, # 9 Exhibit I Email of 7/31/12) (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PETER BORMUTH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-11235

CITY OF JACKSON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO LIMIT
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF
On July 23, 2012, July 25, 2012, July 28, 2012, July 30, 2012, and July 31, 2012,
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, sent numerous ex parte communications to the
court’s case manager. The court has caused the July 23rd email to be to be filed on the
docket and attaches the remaining emails as exhibits to this order, so this
correspondence is visible to other parties.
In each email, Plaintiff directs to the court’s staff various requests for assistance
and information, as well as complaints about the conduct of discovery and an alleged
service error that prevented him from receiving some Defendants’ answer to his
amended complaint. To some extent, these communications also appear to seek legal
advice concerning Plaintiff’s case. (See, e.g., 7/31/12 Email, Ex. I (“Would you please
advise me on how the Court would recommend i proceed?”).) Plaintiff’s emails also
contain requests for court actions. (See, e.g., 7/30/12, 2:36 p.m. Email, Ex. E (“My
allegations must be admitted by the Court by default.”).)

Although the court understands that pro se litigants often face unique challenges
in navigating the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules, Plaintiff should note that
it is inappropriate to raise substantive objections regarding his case in informal, ex parte
communications with the court’s staff. Moreover, neither the court nor the court’s staff
can, under any circumstances, provide any attorney or litigant with legal advice on casemanagement decisions. Such determinations must be made according to a litigant’s or
his representative’s independent interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, in consultation with the
opposing party or counsel when required. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a).
Moreover, the court cautions Plaintiff that, even though he is not an attorney, he
is nonetheless bound to observe basic principles of decorum and civility when
conducting this litigation. See E.D. Mich. LR App’x Civility, available at
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Rules/Plans/08-AO-009.pdf. The July 23rd email
contained a condemnation of opposing counsel and the court’s staff for their perceived1
adherence to Christian beliefs. This is utterly inappropriate. The court will not tolerate
any similar such behavior in future filings or communications with the court, the court’s
staff, or opposing parties. If it continues, Plaintiff may properly be subject to a motion
for sanctions or held in contempt of court. Accordingly,

1

It appears that when Plaintiff disagrees with the actions taken by a member of
the court’s staff or opposing counsel, he often reacts by suggesting, in terms that he
intends to be seen as insulting to the recipient, that the action with which he disagrees
was motivated by Christian principles or beliefs. Such accusations are as groundless as
they are insipid. As outlined in the body of this order, they will cease.
2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall forthwith refrain from initiating ex parte
communications with the court’s staff concerning substantive arguments, objections, or
requests for court action that he wishes to make in this litigation. Plaintiff should limit
his informal communications with the court’s staff to routine inquiries that do not require
the dispensation of legal advice, for example, requests to confirm scheduled hearing
dates or case deadlines.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 31, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, July 31, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

C:\Documents and Settings\wagner\Local Settings\Temp\notes6030C8\~9751499.wpd

3