Westley v. Bryant et al
Filing
291
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 261 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint 202 is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply 282 is DENIED. 3. The motions to dismiss for improper venue [43, 89, 251] are GRANTED. 4. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for improper venue. 5. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 6. Plaintiff John Westley is hereby ENJOINED from filing any further la wsuits, pleadings, or other papers in the District of Minnesota concerning the defendants, facts, or issues involved in this or related actions unless: a. Westley is represented by an attorney licensed to practice before this Court; or b. Westley obtains prior written approval from a judicial officer of this District. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on May 12, 2015. (CLG) cc: Pukel, Rosen on 5/12/2015 (LPH).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOHN WESTLEY,
Case No. 14‐CV‐5002 (PJS/BRT)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
HENRY L. BRYANT; MINNESOTA
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE;
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE; JOHN GARRY; KATHLEEN L.
GEARIN; MIAMI DADE COUNTY;
JAMES ROBERT MANN; MITCHELL P.
KORUS; DANIELLE MANN; LAUREL
M. ISICOFF; DYLAN PUKEL;
LAWRENCE ALLEN SCHWARTZ;
BEATRICE A. BUTCHKO; JENNIFER
VICIEDO RUIZ; JENNIFER D. BAILEY;
VICTORIA LYNN PLATZER; BAYVIEW
LOAN SERVICING LLC; CHICAGO
TITLE INSURANCE; KIMBERLY S.
LECOMPTE; RICHARD I. KORMAN;
BRAD HERMAN TRUSHIN; SAPIENT
CORPORATION; STARBUCKS
CORPORATION; HBA INSURANCE
INC.; 605 LINCOLN ROAD OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION;
RHONDA MONTOYA; PIERO FILPI;
JAMES KOREIN; DIANE V. WARD;
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF
MARYLAND; HAROLD ROSEN; and
STINSON LEONARD STREET,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff John Westley’s objection to the
April 17, 2015 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Becky R.
Thorson. Judge Thorson recommends dismissing this action without prejudice for
improper venue; denying Westley’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint;
denying all other motions as moot; and enjoining Westley from filing any further
lawsuits, pleadings, or other papers concerning this or related actions unless he is
represented by a member of this Court’s bar or obtains prior written approval from a
judicial officer of this District.
The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court overrules Westley’s objection and adopts
Judge Thorson’s R&R.
Only a few matters merit comment: The Court notes that Westley has recently
moved for an extension of time to respond to several motions filed shortly before or
after Judge Thorson issued the R&R. Those motions do not raise any new arguments
concerning venue, however, and thus nothing Westley could say in response to those
motions would affect the Court’s ruling.1 In addition, Westley has moved for leave to
file a reply to defendants’ anticipated responses to his objection. Westley’s objection
1
One of the motions lists “improper venue” as a ground for dismissal, see ECF
No. 251, but the accompanying memorandum merely adopts by incorporation the
venue arguments made by other defendants to which Westley has already had a chance
to respond, see ECF No. 252.
consists almost entirely of irrelevant assertions that do not address or concern the issue
of venue, however. The Court therefore sees no need for a response from any
defendant or to a reply to any response. Finally, the Court agrees with Judge Thorson
that Westley’s history of abusive filings warrants limiting his ability to file further
lawsuits in this District concerning the subject matter of this action.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
the Court OVERRULES plaintiff’s objection [ECF No. 281] and ADOPTS the R&R [ECF
No. 261]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint [ECF No. 202] is
DENIED.
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a reply [ECF No. 282] is DENIED.
3.
The motions to dismiss for improper venue [ECF Nos. 43, 89, 251] are
GRANTED.
4.
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for improper venue.
5.
All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
6.
Plaintiff John Westley is hereby ENJOINED from filing any further
lawsuits, pleadings, or other papers in the District of Minnesota
concerning the defendants, facts, or issues involved in this or related
actions unless:
a.
Westley is represented by an attorney licensed to practice before
this Court; or
b.
Westley obtains prior written approval from a judicial officer of this
District.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 12, 2015
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
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?