Rosiere v. United States of America

Filing 60

ORDER. Plaintiff Shaun Rosiere's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37 ); Motion forDemand for Judgment (ECF No. 47 ); Motion to Stay Proceedings Motion for SummaryJudgment (ECF No. 48 ); Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 49 ); Motion t oWithdraw (ECF No. 53 ); Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 55 ); Motion ChallengingJurisdiction of Colorado District Court (ECF No. 56 ); and Motion to Stay Motion toWithdraw Document (ECF No. 57 ), are DENIED without prejudice. Discovery and othe r proceedings in this case are stayed pending decision of the government's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 42 ).A status hearing is set for February 7, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will be vacated if the district judge has not yet decided the government's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 11/9/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

SHAUN ROSIERE,

Case No. 2:16-cv-02286-GMN-PAL

8
9
10

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

(Mots. – ECF Nos.
37, 47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57)

Defendant.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Shaun Rosiere’s Motion for Summary Judgment

13

(ECF No. 37); Motion for Demand for Judgment (ECF No. 47); Motion to Stay Proceedings

14

Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48); Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 49); Motion

15

to Withdraw (ECF No. 53); Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 55); Motion Challenging Jurisdiction

16

of Colorado District Court (ECF No. 56); and Motion to Stay Motion to Withdraw Document (ECF

17

No. 57). These Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and

18

LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.

19

On May 23, 2016, Mr. Rosiere commenced this action by filing a complaint and motion

20

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States District Court for the Northern District

21

of California. It is an action filed under the Freedom of Information Act seeking documents from

22

two criminal cases filed against Rosiere in 2008 and 2009 in the District of New Jersey, and a civil

23

forfeiture action filed in 2005 in the District of Colorado. Defendant United States of America

24

(the “government”) filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively to Transfer

25

Venue (ECF No. 12). On September 27, 2016, the court granted the government’s motion and

26

entered an order transferring this case to the District of Nevada where Rosiere resides. See Order

27

(ECF No. 33).

28
1

1

The government has now filed a second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 42). The motion to

2

dismiss argues that this case is duplicative and “nearly-duplicative” FOIA litigation Rosiere has

3

initiated in multiple federal districts and should therefore be dismissed as “malicious” under 28

4

U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The government’s motion to dismiss in this case points out that District

5

Judge assigned to Rosiere’s District of Colorado case has dismissed his case as both duplicative

6

of this action and a New Jersey FOIA case, 3:16-cv-00341-FLW-TJB.

7

On November 1, 2016, the court held a case management conference and hearing on the

8

Rosiere’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 38) and the government’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 43).

9

See Mins. of Proceeding (ECF No. 58). Mr. Rosiere appeared pro se and Patrick Rose appeared

10

on behalf of the government. Mr. Rosiere explained that he is currently on federal supervision,

11

and as a result cannot travel to New Jersey or Colorado where most of the documents he seeks are

12

located, as his travel is restricted by the conditions of his supervision. He recently received a letter

13

from government counsel in the District of New Jersey indicating that they would be addressing

14

his FOIA requests in that district but wants to proceed with his case here because he has been

15

making requests for years and still has not obtained all of the document and information he believes

16

he is entitled to receive under FOIA.

17

case and related litigation in other districts, the court denied without prejudice Rosiere’s Motion

18

to Compel and granted the government’s Motion to stay discovery and other proceedings, pending

19

a decision on the government’s Motion to Dismiss ECF. No 42). See Mins. of Proceeding (ECF

20

No. 58). The court set a status conference for February 7, 2017, at 10:00 AM.

After hearing from both parties regarding the status of the

21

The court will deny Rosiere’s pending motions without prejudice because the

22

government’s motion to dismiss is potentially dispositve of the entire case, and because

23

government counsel in the District of New Jersey, where Rosiere has another pending FOIA case

24

is processing his requests for the same information sought here. Rosiere may refile motions

25

authorized under the of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Practice, and

26

applicable case law if the government’s motion to dismiss is denied.

27
28
2

1

IT IS ORDERED:

2

1. Plaintiff Shaun Rosiere’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37); Motion for

3

Demand for Judgment (ECF No. 47); Motion to Stay Proceedings Motion for Summary

4

Judgment (ECF No. 48); Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 49); Motion to

5

Withdraw (ECF No. 53); Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 55); Motion Challenging

6

Jurisdiction of Colorado District Court (ECF No. 56); and Motion to Stay Motion to

7

Withdraw Document (ECF No. 57). are DENIED without prejudice.

8
9
10
11
12

2. Discovery and other proceedings in this case are stayed pending decision of the
government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 42).
3. A status hearing is set for February 7, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will be vacated
if the district judge has not yet decided the government’s Motion to Dismiss.
Dated this 9th day of November, 2016.

13
14

PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3