King v. W. W. Grainger Inc.
ORDER denying 143 Motion for Sanctions; denying 144 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 148 Motion for Sanctions; granting 151 Motion to Seal Document #143. Signed by Jane M Virden on 12/13/11. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
MICHAEL ANTHONY KING
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV00016-WAP-JMV
W. W. GRAINGER, INC.
Before the court are the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (# 143); plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time (# 144); plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Document (# 151); and Defendant’s
Motion for Sanctions (# 148).
The court took up the matter of plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, defendant’s motion for
sanctions and plaintiff’s motion for extension of time at a hearing held December 8, 2011. For
the reasons stated during that hearing, which the court will reiterate briefly below, the plaintiff’s
motion for sanctions is DENIED, the Defendant’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED and the
plaintiff’s motion for an extension is DENIED.
The court determined that the plaintiff’s allegations that defense counsel and/or the
defendant forged and falsified documents used and made exhibits to the plaintiff’s deposition
were wholly without factual support. Indeed, during the hearing the plaintiff essentially admitted
that his claims were based on mere suspicion and indicated that had he been notified after the
hearing that one of the documents had been mistakenly placed in his personnel file, he would
have responded differently. The court was satisfied that none of the subject documents were
used inappropriately, that the plaintiff was treated respectfully and fairly, and that defense
counsel had no obligation to notify the plaintiff regarding the mistake. Ultimately, the court
found that it was the plaintiff’s conduct, i.e., lodging serious allegations of unethical and criminal
conduct against another litigant and its counsel without any factual support, that warrants
sanctions. Nevertheless, because of the pro se in forma pauperis status of the plaintiff, the court
is of the opinion that a monetary sanction is unnecessary at this time. However, the plaintiff has
been, and is hereby, sternly warned that he is barred from filing any additional papers in this case
without prior authorization from the court, and that monetary sanctions– among other appropriate
sanctions– will be entered against him for any further unfounded or frivolous filings.
Next, as regards the plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, the court determined that the
plaintiff has failed to show good cause for extension of the motions deadline. The deadline for
filing motions has expired, and the supplementation the plaintiff seeks to make would be futile.
Lastly, the court has considered the plaintiff’s motion to seal, and it is GRANTED for
good cause shown. The plaintiff inadvertently filed Document #143 without first redacting
sensitive information in accordance with the court’s Administrative Procedures for Electronic
Filing. Therefore, the clerk shall forthwith SEAL this document. Additionally, the plaintiff shall
promptly refile this document with the appropriate redaction. However, if the plaintiff has failed
to refile this document within 14 days of this date, within 21 days of this date, he shall show
cause why the seal should not be lifted.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2011.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?