Slade v. United States of America
ORDER Denying 47 Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/16/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EDWIN LEONARD SLADE, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On June 8, 2009, this Court denied petitioner's Motion for an Emergency Writ of Mandamus (#1). Petitioner had asked the Court, in a 142-page Petition, for a trial by jury to overturn his conviction for a traffic offense in the Las Vegas Municipal Court. The Court denied the Petition due to lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Court denied Petitioner's motions to reconsider on November 15, 2010. (#47). These motions consisted of eschatological rantings, invoking various historical figures and events. Plaintiff now brings the instant motion, which is likewise incoherent. The entirety of the motion consists of handwritten notes entitled "Emergency Petition." The content of this note is as follows: The Honorable Court: My text for the docket has disappeared from my control. I will be retyping (66 pages) when I am able . . . [sic] My word is my bond and I aver to the truth of this document. Notary Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
1 (Motion, #47). The motion is notarized. It appears that the petitioner is asking the Court to rule on 2 a motion which is not even submitted for the Court's consideration. It is completely unclear what 3 the motion by Petitioner is attempting to accomplish and does not appear to be properly before this 4 Court. In addition, the Court still lacks jurisdiction. 5 CONCLUSION 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Notice to Pay Rent or 7 Quit (#47) is DENIED. 8 DATED: This 16th day of April, 2010. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 2 ______________________________________ United States District Judge
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?