HOUSER v. BEARD et al

Filing 183

ORDER Striking 176 Notice filed by DARIEN HOUSER as it contradicts the Order of May 14, 2013 (ECF No. 172). Plaintiff's deemed discovery related motions, (ECF No. 169-171) and the responses thereto are being considered by the Court and deci sion is expected shortly. Until such time, the Order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any additional motions, notices, letters or similar items related to discovery or the matters he raises in Plaintiff's Objections & Response to Magistrate Jud ge Order and Defendants Response to Plaintiff's Objections, Response to Magistrate Judge Amend Case Management Order, and Notice (respectively at ECF Nos. 169, 170, 171) until resolution of his outstanding motions and further Order of Court remains in effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 6/28/2013. (mjl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARIEN HOUSER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 10-0416
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy

ORDER DENYING RELIEF REQUESTED IN
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE TO INFORM THE COURT (ECF NO. 176)
On May 14, 2013, this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 172) directing defendants to
respond to three filings by Plaintiff which this Court deemed to be (mostly) in the nature of
discovery requests, namely, “Plaintiff’s Objections & Response to Magistrate Judge Order and
Defendants Response to Plaintiff’s Objections,” “Response to Magistrate Judge Amend Case
Management Order,” and “Notice” (respectively at ECF Nos. 169-171). This Order also stayed
the Case Management Order scheduling motions for summary judgment and responses until
Plaintiff’s deemed discovery motions were sorted out.
The Order also expressly stated:
3.
Plaintiff shall not file any additional motions, notices, letters or
similar items related to discovery or the matters he raises in “Plaintiff’s
Objections & Response to Magistrate Judge Order and Defendants Response to
Plaintiff’s Objections,” “Response to Magistrate Judge Amend Case Management
Order,” and “Notice” (respectively at ECF Nos. 169, 170, 171) until resolution of
his outstanding “motions” and further Order of Court.

Notwithstanding this plain and unambiguous court order to refrain from filing any
additional motions, notices, etc., related to discovery or the other matters raised in Plaintiff’s

deemed discovery related motions, (ECF No. 169-171), on June 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a
“Notice to Inform the Court.” (ECF No. 176). Although there are some current events described
in the “Notice to Inform the Court,” those events and the additional content of this additional
notice relate to the discovery disputes and other matters pending for this Court’s consideration at
(ECF No. 169-171). This Court will dismiss this Notice, and deny all of the requested Court
actions set forth therein, as it contradicts the Order of May 14, 2013 (ECF No. 172).
Plaintiff’s deemed discovery related motions, (ECF No. 169-171) and the responses
thereto are being considered by the Court and decision is expected shortly. Until such time, the
Order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any additional motions, notices, letters or similar items
related to discovery or the matters he raises in “Plaintiff’s Objections & Response to Magistrate
Judge Order and Defendants Response to Plaintiff’s Objections,” “Response to Magistrate Judge
Amend Case Management Order,” and “Notice” (respectively at ECF Nos. 169, 170, 171) until
resolution of his outstanding “motions” and further Order of Court remains in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 28, 2013

s Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:

all counsel of record
Darien Houser
GL-7509
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370