Crawford v. Smith's Food and Drug Store Inc

Filing 261

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 251 , 252 , 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 , and 258 Motions. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 01/25/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Milton O. Crawford, 4 Plaintiff, 5 6 vs. Smith’s Food and Drug Centers, Inc., et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 10 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:12-cv-0122-GMN-GWF ORDER Pending before the Court are eight Motions, (ECF Nos. 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, and 258), filed by pro se Plaintiff Milton O. Crawford.1 11 Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on January 23, 2012, which set forth claims for, 12 inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, defamation, employment 13 discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination against Defendant Smith’s Food and Drug 14 Store, Inc. (Compl. 3:12-16, ECF No. 1-1). On May 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended 15 Complaint, naming Kroger Company (“Kroger”) as an additional defendant. (Am. Compl., 16 ECF No 16). Pursuant to the parties’ stipulated Scheduling Order, discovery in this case was 17 originally scheduled to close on January 14, 2013. (Sched. Order 2:12-17, ECF No 51). 18 On February 28, 2014, after Plaintiff consistently failed to cooperate with discovery 19 requests in defiance of the Court’s Orders, Magistrate Judge George Foley issued a Report and 20 Recommendation stating that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed with 21 prejudice. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 194). On April 9, 2014, the Court adopted Judge Foley’s 22 Report and Recommendation and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. (ECF No. 23 201). On that same day, the Court entered a Judgment in favor of Defendants as to all of 24 25 1 In light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed his filings, holding them to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Page 1 of 2 1 2 Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 202). Subsequently, pro se Plaintiff filed eight Motions for Reconsideration in this case. (ECF 3 Nos. 203, 204, 205, 218, 219, 220, 234, 235). On October 6, 2014, the Court issued an Order, 4 (ECF No. 216), discussing why reconsideration was not warranted and denying the first three 5 of Plaintiffs’ Motions. The Court denied the remaining Motions on July 28, 2015, and, in the 6 same Order, deemed Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 248). 7 Plaintiff now requests leave from the Court to file additional motions requesting 8 reconsideration of Plaintiff’s status as a vexatious litigant, permission to amend erroneous 9 certificates of service, and entry of default judgment against Kroger Company. (ECF Nos. 251, 10 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, and 258). The Court has reviewed these Motions, and finds them 11 to be without merit. 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions, (ECF Nos. 251, 252, 253, 254, 14 255, 256, 257, and 258), are DENIED. 15 16 25 DATED this _____ day of January, 2016. 17 18 19 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 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?