Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 162

ORDER denying 161 Motion for Leave to File Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 11/18/2011. (APP, ) Copy mailed to Spreadbury this date.

FILED
HOV 18 2011
PATRICK E. DUFFY, ClERK

8'1.

Oii
i'iioePUTYi'iTVI"icu:;cRl(iii70,""""S"'SOUlA""''-­

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,
Plaintiff,

)
)

)
)
)

vs.

CV 11-64-M-DWM-JCL

ORDER

)
BITIERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMIL TON,
LEE ENTERPRISES, INC., and
BOONE KARLBERG P.e.
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

-----------------------)
Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury has filed three previous motions in this
matter seeking the disqualification ofMagi strate Judge Jeremiah e. Lynch and the
undersigned, United States District Judge Donald W. Molloy. (Dkt ## 17,48,
129.) Judge Lynch and I have considered and denied these motions. (Dkt ## 46,
49, 101, 132, 133.)J Now, pursuant to Local Rule 7.3, Spreadbury seeks leave to

'Some of Mr. Spreadbury's contentions were also addressed in an Order entered Nov. 2,
2010 in another lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, Spreadbury v. Hoffman et aI., CV
10-49-M-DWM-JCL (dkt # 9).

file a motion requesting that we reconsider our decisions.
Spreadbury raises no new, relevant issues, and the issues he raises again
have been adequately addressed in previous orders. The "new information" that
he provides concerning an alleged inaccuracy in an article in the Ravalli Republic
has no bearing on this motion. Spreadbury has already been warned that future
motions seeking our recusal would be stricken ifhe failed to provide new
information that is relevant to his request.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration (dkt # 161) is DENIED.
Dated this

~y of November, 2011.
Hoy, District Judge
istrict Court

(
''--­