Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al
Filing
103
Objection to Hearing/Court Costs re: 100 Order on Motion to Compel. (APP, )
Michael E. Spreadbury
700 S. 4th Street
Hamilton, MT 59840
Telephone: (406) 363-3877
mspread(qlhotl1laii.com
Pro Se Plaintif!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
) Cause No: CV-Il-64-DWM-JCL
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
)
Plaintiff
v.
)
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
)
OBJECTION TO
CITY OF HAMILTON,
)
HEARING/COURT
LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
COSTS
BOONE KARLBERG, PC,
)
----------------------)
Comes now Spread bury with respectful objection to hearing September 14, 2011
court costs against a Pro Se IFP litigant in the US District Court.
US District Court has not followed circuit and US Court precedent with respect to
immunity of Defense actors, discovery in aforementioned, erroneous legal
principles in aforementioned Rucker v. Davis 237 F. 3d at 1118 (9'" CU. 2001).
1
ObjeClion to Hearing/Costs
cause 9: ll-C\I-11-64·0WM-JCl.
September 1, 2011
Spreadbury pleads before this honorable court for relief from deprivation of
constitutional right in color of law under 42 USC §1983. US District court. refuses
to uphold peaceful assembly, due process clause inter alia. Spreadbury pleads
before this US District Court as Pro Se IFP (TR.# 15). Improper to award court
costs against Pro Se IFF per A,·tiel" III US ConstitutiolJ.
Spreadbury respectfully objects to US District Court violating oath to uphold US
Constitotion, hold hearing for court costs against Pro Se IFP.
Certificate of Compliance
From LR 7(d)(2)(E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certifY that this brief
conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced,
contaius 144 words excluding title page, this compliance.
Respectfully submitted this
BY:.~~~~~-.~
~ay of September, 2011
________________
Michael E. Spreadbury, Self Represented Plaintiff
2
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?