Marin v. Schmider
Filing
46
ORDER DENYING Marin's motion to file 2nd amended complaint 33 w/out prejudice for his failure to comply w/ L.R. 7.1 & 15.1 & directing thet Marin shall not file any further motions to amend until order is issued on Schimder's MTD...; DENYING Marin's misc motion 22 re: acceptance of exhibits as premature & re: request to seal documents as moot issue. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on 5/7/15. (ki)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MEL M. MARIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOE SCHMIDER,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO: 1:14-CV-01523
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Schwab)
ORDER
May 7, 2015
IT IS ORDERED that Marin’s motion (Doc. 33) to file a second amended
complaint is DENIED without prejudice for his failure to comply with Local Rules
7.1 & 15.1. See also, Sanders v. Beard, No. 09–CV–1384, 2010 WL 2853113
(M.D. Pa. July 20, 2010) (providing that pro se parties “are not excused from
complying with court orders and the local rules of court”); Thomas v. Norris, No.
02–CV–01854, 2006 WL 2590488 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2006) (providing that pro se
parties must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). While denied without
prejudice, Marin shall not file any further motions to amend until an order is
issued on Schimder’s motion to dismiss, assuming any of the present claims
survive or are otherwise dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Marin’s miscellaneous motion (Doc. 22) is
DENIED. To that end, Marin asks this Court to take judicial notice of, and accept
as true, exhibits filed in a Federal lawsuit, in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania. In that other lawsuit, Marin is the plaintiff
against different defendants. According to Marin, the exhibits he wants judicially
noticed include his EMT application and an affidavit from Schmider. See Doc. 23
at 1. Such a request, however, is premature at this stage of the proceedings since
no evidence is needed to overcome Schmider’s pending motion to dismiss.1 As
well, “[t]aking judicial notice of the truth of the contents of a filing from a related
action could reach, and perhaps breach, the boundaries of proper judicial notice.”
Werner v. Werner, 267 F.3d 288, 295 (3d Cir. 2001)(declining on appeal to
judicially notice meeting minutes that were filed in a separate action, involving
separate parties, in a different court); see also, Fed.R.Evid. 201(b), 1972 Advisory
Committee Notes (“[The tradition [of judicial notice] has been one of caution in
requiring that the matter be beyond reasonable controversy.”); Lum v. Bank of
America, 361 F.3d 217, 221 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that, under the Rule
1
Marin construes Schmider’s dismissal motion as one for summary judgment
in that unpublished opinions are attached as “exhibits” to the motion. His
construction, however, is erroneous since it is readily apparent that Schmider
solely relies on those unpublished opinions for their legal conclusions, not the
factual conclusions, and to make the Court aware of the existence of those cases.
See Doc. 16; Doc. 31 at 10-12. Moreover, Local Rule 7.8(a), generally, requires
parties to include on the Docket any unpublished opinions relied upon in support of
a motion.
2
12(b)(6) legal standard, the District Court improperly took judicial notice of
plaintiff’s deposition testimony in a prior proceeding).
Lastly, in the same motion for miscellaneous relief, Marin asks this Court to
seal documents containing sensitive information such as his social security
number. Those documents are presumed to be the same ones he wants the Court to
judicially notice.
Since there are no such documents in the current record
containing sensitive information about Marin, the issue is moot.
S/Susan E. Schwab
Susan E. Schwab
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?