Banschbach v. Dr. Kohut
Filing
34
ORDER denying 30 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Johnston on 10/5/2016. Mailed to Banschbach. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
JACOB BANSCHBACH,
CV-15-00107-H-DLC-JTJ
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
DOCTOR KOHUT AT MONTANA
STATE PRISON,
Defendant.
Pending is Plaintiff Jacob Banschbach’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. 30)
which will be denied for failure to comply with the following Local Rules. First,
Mr. Banschbach filed the motion prior to the issuance of a scheduling order. Local
Rule 26.1 provides that “in actions brought without counsel, no party may begin
discovery until a Scheduling Order has been issued.” L.R. 26.1(d). Second, Local
Rule 26.2(a) prohibits the filing of discovery requests. Finally, Local Rule
7.1(c)(1) requires that, “the text of the motion must state that other parties have
been contacted and state whether any party objects to the motion.” There is no
indication in the motion that Mr. Banschbach has complied with Local Rule 7.1.
Mr. Banschbach was advised of each of these rules in the Court’s February
24, 2016 Order (Doc. 15) and yet he chose to ignore them yet again. Mr.
1
Banschbach’s status as a pro se litigant does not excuse his failure to comply with
the Court’s Local Rules. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)
(“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation
should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without
counsel.”); Am. Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104,
1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000) (disabusing a pro se defendant of the notion that he was
excused from complying with the procedural rules because they were “not
something a pro se defendant can be expected to know”). As the Ninth Circuit has
repeatedly held, pro se litigants are required to follow the same rules as parties who
are represented by counsel. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995)
(holding that pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as other
litigants). In addition, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly upheld the sanction of
dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial procedures mandated by local rules
and court orders.” Thompson v. Housing Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 830 (9th Cir.
1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (noting that failure to comply with the rules or a court
order may be grounds for dismissal).
Further, Local Rule 83.8 provides that, “[a] self-represented person is bound
by the federal rules and all applicable local rules. Sanctions, including but not
limited to entry of default judgment or dismissal with prejudice, may be imposed
2
for failure to comply with local rules.” Mr. Banschbach’s blatant refusal to follow
the Court’s local rules will not be tolerated.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court issues the following:
ORDER
1. Mr. Banschbach’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. 30) is DENIED.
2. At all times during the pendency of this action, Mr. Fletcher must
immediately advise the Court of any change of address and its effective date.
Failure to file a notice of change of address may result in the dismissal of the
action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
DATED this 5th day of October 2016.
/s/ John Johnston
John Johnston
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?