Lee v. Trump et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying 29 Plaintiff Robin M. Lee's Motion Requesting All of the Below. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 7/2/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8

ROBIN M. LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendant.

9
10

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00077-RCJ -VCF
ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff Robin M. Lee’s “Motion Requesting All of the Below.” (#29). No

11

Opposition has been filed.1

12

Pending “Motion Requesting All of the Below”

13

Plaintiff Lee asserts in his motion that “President Obama extended [him] a ½ billion loan,” but

14

that he has “yet to call up U.S. Attorney to ask how [he would] go about it.” (#29). Plaintiff also asserts

15

that Mr. Trump has “offered [him] a $5 billion settlement,” that he filed a motion of acceptance of the

16

offer, and that he appealed this court’s denial of the motion to the court of appeals. Id. Plaintiff states

17

“are you now all lying to me,” and “I need to ask you and your [unintelligible] Dept. if its no good

18

please said [sic] it to me...” Id.

19

Parties may file motions requesting a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Local Rule 7-2(a)

20

provides that “[a]ll motions, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be in writing and served on all

21

other parties who have appeared.” All handwritten motions submitted to the court “shall be legible.”

22

Local Rule 10-1. The “failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion

23

shall constitute a consent to the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d).

24

As an initial matter, many of plaintiff Lee’s sentences are unintelligible due to plaintiff’s

25
26

1

Defendants Donald Trump and Trump Corporation have not been served, and plaintiff has until August 21,
2012, to provide proof of service of the summons and complaint. (#11).

1

handwriting. Upon review of plaintiff’s motion, the court is unable to decipher what “court order” the

2

plaintiff is requesting, and plaintiff has not provided the court with points and authorities in support of

3

this motion. (#29). To receive relief from this court, plaintiff must legibly inform the court of what

4

order he is requesting the court to enter, must file points and authorities in support thereof, and must

5

properly serve the motion on any defendants that have appeared. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b); LR 7-2(a)

6

and (d), and 10-1. The court recognizes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se, but advises plaintiff that he

7

is still required to familiarize himself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local

8

Rules of this court. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 584 (1972)(holding that pro

9

se plaintiffs are held to a less stringent standard than those who are represented by counsel); Jacobsen

10

v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986)(holding that pro se parties are not excused from

11

following the rules and orders of the court). As the court is unable to determine what relief, if any,

12

plaintiff is seeking, plaintiff’s motion (#29) is denied. See LR 7-2(d).

13

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

14

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Robin M. Lee’s “Motion Requesting All of the Below” (#29) is

15
16

DENIED.
DATED this 2nd day of July, 2012.

17
18

CAM FERENBACH
AM FERENBACH
M E
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2