McGuire v. St. Louis County Missouri et al

Filing 216

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 202 , Motion to Clerk to Correct Error on Filing 207 , Motion to Reinstate Lawsuit 208 , Motion to Allow Each Document filed to be a Stand Alone Document 214 , and Motion to Include Criminal Charges 215 are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Stay Motion for Reconsideration 211 is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs [204,] 205 is granted and the Clerk of Court shall tax as costs against plaintiff the sum of $4,894 as set out in the Bill of Costs. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 4/18/19. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DR. PATT MCGUIRE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17 CV 2818 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On February 7, 2019, the Court dismissed this case because of plaintiff’s
willful refusal to comply with Court orders and her abuse of the litigation process.
The case is now before the Court on the many motions plaintiff has filed after the
dismissal, and on defendants’ bill of costs.
Motion to Reconsider and for Reinstatement of Lawsuit
Plaintiff argues that the Court’s dismissal was unjust because she is
representing herself pro se, because she properly asserted a still-unspecified
“privilege” in her refusal to answer questions in her deposition, because defendants
and the court reporter used a “fake document,” because the defendants and court
reporter spoliated evidence or committed crimes by not providing her deposition
errata sheet, because she be allowed to refuse to answer any questions about
anything that happened on the job that was not specifically actionable as a claim of

discrimination in this case, because I stated in the order that she filed a document
the day after one of the depositions when in fact she filed it the same day as the
deposition, and because I was biased against her. She also filed a motion to
reinstate the case because the missing errata sheet has now been provided.
Nothing in the motion to reconsider is new; I fully considered and rejected
all of the arguments raised in that motion in my earlier order. I have nevertheless
examined all of these arguments again and I again conclude that dismissal was the
only just result in this case, for all the reasons stated in the earlier order. I have
also reviewed the errata sheet, and conclude that it does not change anything.
Although in the sheet she provided her own definition of “blackballing,” she did
not change or provide answers to any of the other numerous questions that she had
refused to answer. I will deny the Motion for Reconsideration [202] and the
Motion to Reinstate the case [208]. I will deny as moot plaintiff’s later-filed
Motion to Stay decision on the motion for reconsideration [211].
Bill of Costs
Defendants, who are entitled to recover their costs because they are the
prevailing party, timely filed their Bill of Costs along with supporting
documentation. They seek as taxable costs the $400 filing fee of the Clerk (which
they paid when they removed this case from state court) and deposition costs
totaling $4,494 for the depositions of they took of plaintiff and for copies of
2

depositions taken by plaintiff of defendants Cheryl Campbell, Marshall Day,
Clifford Faddis and Thomas Burkemper.
Plaintiff objects to the taxation of costs, arguing that requiring her to pay
defendants’ costs would be unjust. She argues that the dismissal was based on
incomplete information because her deposition errata sheet had not been provided
earlier. I have now reviewed that errata sheet and it changes nothing. Her other
arguments that assessing costs is unjust are similarly meritless. Additionally, her
argument that filing fees and costs of depositions are not properly taxable as costs
is directly contrary to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which specifically lists these as costs that
are taxable.
Other Motions
Plaintiff asks, as she has earlier, for the Court to bring criminal charges
against defense counsel because they supposedly presented a “fake document” at
the depositions. This request frivolous. As set out in the February 7 Memorandum
and Order, the document is not fake – it is a document plaintiff wrote, that she
produced in discovery, and that she herself used in taking the deposition of one of
the defendants.
Plaintiff has also filed several motions regarding how the Clerk of Court
files her documents. These motions are also without merit and will be denied.
Accordingly,
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
[202], Motion to Clerk to Correct Error on Filing [207], Motion to Reinstate
Lawsuit [208], Motion to Allow Each Document filed to be a Stand Alone
Document [214], and Motion to Include Criminal Charges [215] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Motion for
Reconsideration [211] is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Costs
[204, 205] is granted and the Clerk of Court shall tax as costs against plaintiff the
sum of $4,894 as set out in the Bill of Costs.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 18th day of April, 2019.

4