Mumford

Filing 17

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO DISMISS SHOW CAUSE ORDER: This Court GRANTS the motion to strike (Dkt. No. 15 ). The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike Mr. Mumfords motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14 ). Signed on November 19, 2017 by Honorable John C. Coughenour. (eo)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
IN RE MARCUS R. MUMFORD.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-0348-JCC

10

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO

11

DISMISS SHOW CAUSE ORDER

12
13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on attorney Marcus Mumford’s motion to dismiss the

16

order to show cause why his pro hac vice admission to the District of Oregon should not be

17

revoked (Dkt. No. 14) and the District of Oregon’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 15). Having

18

thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS the motion to

19

strike (Dkt. No. 15) for the reasons explained herein.

20

Mr. Mumford was granted pro hac vice admission in the matter of United States v.

21

Ammon Bundy. See Case No. CR16-0051-BR, Dkt. No. 665 (D. Or. 2016). During the resulting

22

trial, Mr. Mumford refused to observe court rulings, argued with the court, commented on the

23

testimony of a witness in the presence of the jury, violated an order from the court by allowing a

24

fact witness to observe the trial when not testifying, and argued for his client’s release from

25

custody following acquittal despite a pre-existing custody order for his client in another case.

26

Case No. CR16-0051-BR, Dkt. No. 2069 (D. Or. 2016). His actions violated the standards for
ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO DISMISS SHOW
CAUSE ORDER
MC17-0348-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

professional conduct. See D. Or. Local Civ. R. 83-7. Based on this behavior, the District of

2

Oregon issued an order for Mr. Mumford to show cause why his pro hac vice admission should

3

not be revoked. Id. 1

4

Mr. Mumford filed a motion to extend the time to respond and to clarify the show cause

5

order. Case No. CR16-0051-BR, Dkt. No. 2084. The District of Oregon clarified the show cause

6

order, granted Mr. Mumford an extension of time to respond, and sua sponte recused itself from

7

further proceedings in the matter. CR16-0051-BR, Dkt. Nos. 2087, 2100, 2101. This Court was

8

designated for further proceedings. Id. at 2101. Following the appointment of counsel to

9

represent the District of Oregon, Case No. CR16-0051-BR, Dkt. No. 2145, this Court issued an

10

order approving a stipulated briefing schedule and granting Mr. Mumford a January 8, 2018

11

evidentiary hearing on the show cause order. CR16-0051-BR, Dkt. No. 2192.

12

Despite agreeing to the stipulated briefing schedule, Mr. Mumford again sought a series

13

of extensions to respond to the show cause order, which this Court granted. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 9.) But

14

despite these extensions, Mr. Mumford filed only a provisional response, providing no date

15

certain for a final response. (Dkt. No. 7-1.) This Court advised Mr. Mumford that it would accept

16

no further briefing on the matter from him, as the District of Oregon needed time to prepare its

17

brief in opposition to Mr. Mumford’s provisional response prior to the scheduled evidentiary

18

hearing. (Dkt. No. 13.)

19

Despite the Court’s clear instructions (Dkt. No. 13 at 1), Mr. Mumford now moves to

20

dismiss the show cause order. (Dkt. No. 14.) He attacks the merits of the allegations contained

21

within the show cause order, questions the jurisdiction of the District of Oregon in issuing the

22

order, alleges insufficient notice, and asserts other procedural infirmities. (Id. at 1–47.) Mr.

23
24
25
26

1

This Court established a new case number, MC17-0348-JCC, for the show cause
proceeding, separate and apart from United States vs. Bundy, Case No. CR16-0051-BR. This
followed the filing of a number of documents in the show cause matter under the case number
for United States vs. Bundy. References in this order to docket numbers without an associated
case number are to documents associated with the new case number. (See Dkt. No. 2.)
ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO DISMISS SHOW
CAUSE ORDER
MC17-0348-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

Mumford provides no legal basis for this Court to consider his motion to dismiss, particularly in

2

light of this Court’s past orders. Furthermore, he makes the same allegations in his provisional

3

response as he does in his motion to dismiss. (Compare Dkt. No. 7-1 at 2–129 with Dkt. No. 14

4

at 1–47.) Therefore, this Court GRANTS the motion to strike (Dkt. No. 15). The Clerk is

5

DIRECTED to strike Mr. Mumford’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14).

6
7

DATED this 19th day of November, 2017.

A

8
9
10

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO DISMISS SHOW
CAUSE ORDER
MC17-0348-JCC
PAGE - 3