Smith v. Jaco et al
ORDER denying 37 Motion to Strike ; denying 38 Motion. Signed by Jane M Virden on 6/4/2013. (sef)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
MICHAEL W. SMITH
CIVIL ACTION NO.:2:12cv75-GHD-JMV
GAIL JACO, ET AL.
Before the Court are motions filed by the pro se plaintiff to strike defendants letter
motions (#37) and to record the filing date of pleadings as October 18, 2012 (#38). Neither of
these motions are well-taken.
The court first turns to the motion to strike Defendant's letter motions (#22, 23, 31, and
32). These motions were all denied by the court and thus the plaintiff's motion to strike is moot.
The court can find no reason that these motions should be removed from the record.
The court now turns to the motion to record motions for default judgment and summary
judgement to have been filed on October 18, 2012. This is a case in which all parties are pro se
and the plaintiff, though apparently incarcerated for the foreseeable future, is seeking damages
for matters unrelated to §1983 claims. In light of these circumstances, the court has granted all
parties considerable leniency in term of compliance with procedural rules of court. Nevertheless,
there is no proof, other than a bald assertion by plaintiff, that the pleadings were ever mailed to
the clerk of court for filing. On the contrary, the proof is, by virtue of the certificate of service,
that they were only mailed to the parties. Moreover, there is no prejudice to plaintiff, since as of
the date the plaintiff urges the court to deem them as having been filed, October 12, 2012, the
defendants had each already filed a response to the complaint denying all allegations of the
complaint and seeking also to dismiss the complaint (the motion to dismiss was heretofore
denied by the court).
The Court finds that the motions (#'s 37 and 38) are not well taken and are hereby
SO ORDERED this 4th day of June, 2013.
/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?