Foster v. Ohio State of
Filing
99
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 84 Defendants' Motion to Stay and 87 Plaintiff's Counter-Motion Opposing a Stay, but the period for pretrial discovery on the limited two remaining claims against Defendants Bear and Dyer, as to which the undersigned has not recommended that judgment be granted, it is hereby EXTENDED to 5/15/2018, with any dispositive motions to be filed not later than 9/15/2018. All other non-dispositive motions filed by Plaintiff 88 92 93 95 97 are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 3/28/2018. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER FOSTER,
Case No. 1:16-cv-920
Plaintiff,
Black, J.
Bowman, M.J.
v.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINON AND ORDER
Plaintiff is a frequent filer in this Court, both of cases and of numerous (and
lengthy) handwritten single-spaced motions within each of those cases, including this
one. 1 The undersigned has filed a Report and Recommendation this same day that
addresses pending dispositive motions. This additional Memorandum Opinion and
Order addresses seven currently pending non-dispositive motions, all but one of which
has been filed by Plaintiff.
I.
Pending Non-Dispositive Motions
Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 84) and Motion to Seek Denial of Stay of
Discovery (Doc. 87)
The only non-dispositive motion filed by Defendants is a motion seeking to stay
all discovery until this Court’s resolution of a pending motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Discovery in this case was previously scheduled to conclude on March 15,
1
The undersigned’s last R&R noted that Plaintiff had filed at least 29 motions in this case alone, (see Doc.
78, n.1). As of this writing, that number that has risen to 38 motions in this record alone, not including
multiple non-motion filings. (See additional motions filed at Docs. 76, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97).
1
2018, but does not appear to have been completed.
The undersigned will deny
Defendants’ motion as moot in light of the R&R filed this day, which also clarifies the
limited claims on which discovery may proceed. In order to expedite the resolution of
this case and provide both parties a full and fair opportunity to complete discovery on
those claims, this Order extends the existing pretrial deadlines.
In lieu of filing any response in opposition to Defendants’ motion to stay
discovery, Plaintiff filed a counter-motion seeking an order denying the stay, as well as
a “combined request to submit an advisory to the defendants to fully quash the apparent
confusion of this matter’s purpose.” (Doc. 87). Plaintiff’s motion seeks denial of the stay
to avoid undue delay, and because he believes that Defendants’ pending motion for
judgment on the pleadings is without merit. Plaintiff’s counter-motion also will be denied
as moot.
Motion to Supplement (Doc. 88) to Add To Respectfully Exhibited Advisory
Requested to Be Presented to Defendants To Shed Light On Their Apparent
Misinterpretation of this Good Faith Litigation – Brief Narrative/Addition
Attached
This motion will be denied as largely redundant of Plaintiff’s motion to seek denial
of the stay of discovery.
Motion for Return of Documents (Doc. 92)
Plaintiff seeks a free copy of “the original Exhibits attached to this prisoner
affidavit herein, along with a copy of the action docket for this case.” In the same
motion, Plaintiff requests a copy of the docket sheet for another one of Plaintiff’s cases.
This motion will be denied because in forma pauperis status does not entitle a litigant to
free copies.
2
Motion for Entering New Evidence – Exhibits In Support of Relief of Order
on Basis of Danger and of Necessary Injunction Proved. (Doc. 93)
Plaintiff previously has been advised that this Court will not enter ad hoc
“evidence” in the record. The motion to enter evidence is therefore denied. To the
extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s prior denial of his motion for
injunctive relief, the motion is redundant and addressed in the R&R filed this day.
Motion for the US Marshal to Serve the Defendant on The Class Action
Claims (Doc. 95)
This motion is denied as moot on the basis of the R&R filed this same day, which
recommends denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend to add new claims and to convert this
case to a class action.
Motion to Stay All Proceedings (Doc. 97)
Plaintiff’s motion seeks a stay of this case until this Court orders Plaintiff to be
transferred to another institution based upon Plaintiff’s request of preliminary injunctive
relief (which previously has been denied). The motion is denied except insofar as new
pretrial deadlines are established in this order concerning the limited claims as to which
the Defendants have not been granted judgment. To the extent that Plaintiff intended
this motion to once again seek preliminary injunctive relief, the motion previously has
been ruled upon by this Court and the previously stated reasons for recommending
denial of that relief are incorporated into the R&R filed this same day.
II.
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the accompanying Report and
Recommendation, IT IS ORDERED:
3
1. Defendants’ motion to stay and Plaintiff’s counter-motion opposing a stay
(Docs. 84, 87) are DENIED AS MOOT, but the period for pretrial discovery on the
limited two remaining claims against Defendants Bear and Dyer, as to which the
undersigned has not recommended that judgment be granted, is hereby EXTENDED
until May 15, 2018, with any dispositive motions to be filed not later than September
15, 2018;
2. All other non-dispositive motions filed by Plaintiff (Docs. 88, 92, 93, 95, and
97) are DENIED for the reasons discussed.
/s Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?