Morrison v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated et al

Filing 184

ORDER Denying State Defendant's 112 Motion for an Order that Plaintiff Reveal Ghost Lawyer and that the Court Take Appropriate Action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/21/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5
6
7
8
9

PATRICIA HARDING MORRISON,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01207-RFB-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
(Mot to Reveal - Dkt. #112)
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED,
et al.
Defendants.

10
11

Before the court is State Defendants’ Motion for an Order that Plaintiff Reveal Ghost

12

Lawyer, and that Court take Appropriate Action (Dkt. #112). The court has considered the

13

Motion (Dkt. #112), Plaintiff’s “Reply and Opposition” (Dkt. #115), and State Defendants’

14

Reply (Dkt. #118).

15

The State Defendants suspect that pro se Plaintiff, Patricia Harding Morrison, is using a

16

“ghost lawyer” to assist her and prepare papers filed with the court in violation of the Nevada

17

Rules of Professional Conduct, the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a

18

lawyer sign pleadings, and the requirements that out-of-state counsel apply for permission to

19

practice pro hac vice and obtain local counsel. The motion requests that the court:

20
21

1. Inquire whether Plaintiff is receiving substantial assistance in preparing the pleadings
and written discovery;

22

2. Request the identity of the person providing the assistance;

23

3. If the person is an attorney, require proper appearance;

24

4. If the person is a non-lawyer, report the person to the State Bar of Nevada; and

25

5. Take any additional action against the ghost lawyer that the court deems appropriate.

26

Plaintiff responds to the motion stating that she is appearing in this matter pro se and that

27

she has not received substantial assistance in preparing the pleadings and written discovery in

28

this case from an attorney or non-attorney. She categorically states there is no ghost lawyer to
1

1

make an appearance in this court and no non-lawyer to report to the State Bar of Nevada. She

2

also correctly points out that just because she is representing herself does not mean she is

3

“stupid” and unable to proceed with her case. She also correctly points out that the substantial

4

increase in parties proceeding pro se is because they simply cannot afford an attorney and/or do

5

not trust attorneys and the legal system. Plaintiff states she can walk and chew bubblegum at the

6

same time. She acquired skills by completing a professional paralegal program and reading

7

books including The Lawsuit Survival Guide. Her response attaches an official student transcript

8

of her paralegal studies course. Plaintiff asks that the court strike the Defendants’ offensive

9

pleading, enter an award of costs and fees for bringing this reply and opposition, admonish the

10

Defendants, and award any relief the court deems just and proper.

11

The State Defendants reply that the motion was filed to preserve the integrity of the court

12

system. Defendants did not request any sanctions against the Plaintiff. Plaintiff could simply

13

have stated that she was not receiving substantial assistance and this would have closed the

14

matter. Instead, she chose to draft a lengthy opposition unrelated to the simple question in the

15

State Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to strike the pleading, enter an award

16

of costs and fees and other sanctions should be denied in its entirety.

17

Ms. Morrison has appeared before the court and has conducted herself appropriately. She

18

is an intelligent and articulate woman. The court accepts her representations that she is preparing

19

all of the pleadings and papers in her own case and has not been assisted by a lawyer or non-

20

lawyer. This motion was unnecessary. Counsel for the State Defendants could simply have

21

directly inquired of the Plaintiff before filing a motion. However, a pro se Plaintiff is not entitled

22

to fees and costs for filing her opposition.

23

Accordingly,

24

IT IS ORDERED that the State Defendants’ Motion for an Order that Plaintiff Reveal

25
26

Ghost Lawyer and that the Court Take Appropriate Action (Dkt. #112) is DENIED.
DATED this 21st day of June, 2016.

27
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2