Newman v. University of Dayton et al

Filing 36

ENTRY AND ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF PETER NEWMAN IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 ORDER 28 INSTRUCTING THE PARTIES THAT ALL FURTHERCOMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH FILINGS IN THE COURT'S DOCKET OR ORALLY DURING SCHEDULED CONFERENCES OR HEARINGS BEFORE THE COURT. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-4-2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (de)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
PETER NEWMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:17-cv-179
Judge Thomas M. Rose

ENTRY AND ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF PETER NEWMAN IN
VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 ORDER (DOC. 28)
INSTRUCTING THE PARTIES THAT ALL FURTHER
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH
FILINGS IN THE COURT’S DOCKET OR ORALLY DURING SCHEDULED
CONFERENCES OR HEARINGS BEFORE THE COURT

This case is before the Court because, on September 28, 2017, Plaintiff Peter
Newman sent an email1 to Chambers in violation of the Court’s September 14, 2017
Order (Doc. 28) that instructed the parties that all further communications with the
Court should be made through filings in the Court’s docket or orally during scheduled
conferences or hearings. Email communications with the Court regarding substantive
issues are improper for many reasons, including that they raise concerns about the
transparency of the Court’s processes and whether a party is engaging in ex parte
communications with the Court.
The vast majority of attorneys who practice before this Court know that such

1 Plaintiff’s September 28, 2017 email is attached to this Entry and Order as an exhibit.

communications are improper and do not attempt them. Here, however, Plaintiff has
demonstrated that he does not share that knowledge. Ordinarily, the Court would not
have to enter an order instructing the parties not to email Chambers. It is even more
unusual that, after doing so, the Court’s Order would be ignored by the party whose
actions made its entry a necessity.
Although Plaintiff clearly violated the September 14, 2017 Order, the Court will
not order him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt at this time.
Plaintiff is a licensed attorney and admitted to the Bar of this Court, but he is
proceeding pro se in this case and does not appear to be familiar with the basics of a
litigation practice, much less litigating before a federal court. This Entry and Order is
formal notice, however, that further violations of the Court’s September 14, 2017 Order
may result in a finding of contempt and the imposition of sanctions, including
terminating sanctions if warranted.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, October 4, 2017.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2