Jones v. Burwell

Filing 79

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing re 77 and 78 Letters from John Paul Jones. (cda)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JOHN PAUL JONES, Plaintiff, vs. 1:15cv00594-JAP-LF SYLVIA MATTHEWS BURWELL, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant. ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se plaintiff John Paul Jones, III’s letters dated May 29, 2017 (Doc. 77) and June 3, 2017 (Doc. 78). These letters were not addressed to the opposing party in this case and it appears Mr. Jones did not provide a copy of the letters to defendant. As such, the letters constitute improper ex parte communications. “Attorneys and pro se parties are prohibited from all ex parte communication with the judge or judge’s staff. Ex parte communication occurs when one of the parties to a lawsuit exchanges information with the assigned judge (1) without the opposing party being present, or (2) without the knowledge and consent of the opposing party.” Acheff v. Lazare, 2013 WL 12129277, at *1 (D.N.M. Oct. 18, 2013) (quoting Martinez-Jones v. Dulce Indep. Sch., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42320, at *12 (D.N.M. March 5, 2008)). Mr. Jones’ pro se status does not provide an exception to this rule or excuse him from following the same rules of procedure as any other litigant. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that the Tenth Circuit has “repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (internal quotation marks omitted). In his letter dated June 3, 2017, Mr. Jones requests a meeting with the Court to “make a real credibility determination in regard to [Mr. Hoses’] behavior . . . .” Doc. 78 at 9. The Court construes this as a request for a hearing and will deny the request. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on all of Mr. Jones’ claims and dismissed this lawsuit. Doc. 70. The Court further denied Mr. Jones’ motion for sanctions against Mr. Hoses. Doc. 71. Mr. Jones has appealed this case to the Tenth Circuit (Doc. 72), and this Court no longer has jurisdiction. “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); see, also United States v. Madrid, 633 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir. 2011). This Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed and does not have the ability to grant Mr. Jones any relief. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Jones’ request for a hearing is DENIED. The Court notifies Mr. Jones that any future ex parte communications from him may result in sanctions. ________________________ Laura Fashing United States Magistrate Judge 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?