Haley v. CMS

Filing 208

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 141 MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION for Settlement filed by Plaintiff Samuel E. Haley, Jr. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's "Pro Se Motion for a Settlement Agreement and a Medical Emergency with Sworn Affidavit in Support Thereof" [sic] on November 10, 2011(#141) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/22/12. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

SAMUEL E. HALEY, JR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CMS, et. al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:09-CV-144-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a case brought by a prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a “Pro Se
Motion for a Settlement Agreement and a Medical Emergency with Sworn Affidavit in Support
Thereof” [sic] on November 10, 2011 (#141). Defendants Dan Martinez, Bryan Hopkins, and
Charles Reed have responded (#143).
Plaintiff’s motion is similar to his September 17, 2010 “Confidential Settlement
Agreement Request” (#72), although it is less voluminous. Plaintiff appears to believe that the
Court can order the parties to reach a “Reasonable Settlement.” The plaintiff is mistaken. Again,
as with the plaintiff’s first motion of this type, his request for a settlement agreement is not
procedurally appropriate, and the Court cannot grant the relief plaintiff demands.
Plaintiff also makes allegations regarding his medical treatment, and he states that he
showed his “deformed” finger to counsel for certain defendants. Plaintiff requests that the Court
take judicial notice of certain exhibits regarding his medical condition and the destruction of his
typewriter. He states that the typewriter was destroyed to prevent him from communicating with
the court and his counsel. However, the Court cannot discern what plaintiff seeks to accomplish

by the filing of this motion. In an attached letter to the undersigned judge, plaintiff states that he
hopes to be “‘Ordered’ by [the Court] to receive the Emergency Medical Treatment that I need
due to my ‘Very Serious and Severe Illness’” (emphasis omitted). However, plaintiff’s letter is
procedurally and otherwise inappropriate (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)), and the motion itself does
not request injunctive relief but rather summarizes his alleged facts.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Pro Se Motion for a Settlement Agreement
and a Medical Emergency with Sworn Affidavit in Support Thereof” [sic] on November 10, 2011
(#141) is DENIED.
Dated this 22nd

day of May, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-