Hall v. Spencer

Filing 48

ORDER REGARDING CONTACT WITH COURT STAFF. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan on 2/22/2022. (Saucier, Martha)

Case 1:18-cv-00355-WES-PAS Document 48 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 772

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
LORI HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARLOS DEL TORO, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

C.A. No. 18-355-WES-PAS

ORDER REGARDING CONTACT WITH COURT STAFF
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
The Court is reluctantly compelled to address Plaintiff Lori Hall’s pattern of contacting
the Clerk’s Office on an almost daily basis through multiple and repetitive ex parte1 emails and
voicemails. The emails have disrupted the Clerk’s Office’s ability to process matters for other
litigants. Each email must be read carefully in an attempt to understand what Plaintiff intends as
a filing, what is discovery that the Clerk’s Office must return to her, and what are improper ex
parte communications that should not have been made. Some of the emails address substantive
issues related to her case. Plaintiff’s pattern of emails has reached the point where the Court has
been required to become involved on an almost daily basis to give direction to the Clerk’s Office
staff regarding how to respond.
The Court provides the following outline as a sample of some of Plaintiff’s ex parte
contact with the Clerk’s Office:
December 27-31, 2021: Plaintiff contacted the Clerk’s Office by
telephone several times and had at least two lengthy calls with staff;

1

“Ex parte,” by definition means contact with the court “without notice to, or argument by, anyone having an
adverse interest.” Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

Case 1:18-cv-00355-WES-PAS Document 48 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 773

February 11, 2022: Plaintiff had a lengthy telephone conversation with a
member of the Clerk’s Office staff where the staff member attempted to explain
to Plaintiff the rules regarding court filings and general interactions with the
Clerk’s Office staff;
February 10-13, 2022:

Plaintiff sent seven emails;

February 14, 2022:

Plaintiff sent one email;

February 15-16, 2022:

Plaintiff sent four emails;

February 18-19, 2022:

Plaintiff sent sixteen emails and left one
voicemail;

February 20-22, 2022:
Plaintiff sent four emails, one email was sent
directly to a member of the Clerk’s Office staff and included the following
statement: “I someone to be reckoned with as I explain to [a member of the
Clerk’s Office staff] many months ago. I might even write a book, or have
someone make a movie. But definitely show light of Court judges with blood on
their hands. Otherwise I’m gonna come at you from every avenue everywhere
you turn I’ll be. When God is on your side your limits are endless. The enemy is
weak.” Ms. Hall Email Feb. 21, 2022 (emphasis added).
The Court is mindful of Plaintiff’s distress regarding her perception of events pertaining
to her case. Most recently, that distress relates at least in part to: (1) her misunderstanding of the
Court’s order of February 16, 2022, believing it was to dismiss her case; and (2) what she
describes as a traumatic incident during her deposition, including her mistaken belief that she
had applied to the Court to provide her with medical assistance during the deposition, a request
which she believes was refused by Judge Smith. To be clear, the Court’s February 16 order
referencing dismissal was in response to Plaintiff’s request, see ECF No. 44, and Judge Smith
had nothing to do with what may or may not have occurred during her deposition. Plaintiff’s
emailing pattern, however, has reached the point that it has become an extraordinary burden on
the Court, the Clerk’s Office and its staff. These frequent, and at times lengthy and confusing,
contacts by Plaintiff have interfered with the Court’s staff’s ability to carry out their duties. The
Court is concerned about the potential for unfairness to Defendant arising from this ongoing
2

Case 1:18-cv-00355-WES-PAS Document 48 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 774

pattern of extended ex parte communications. The Court is also concerned that it is unable to
determine whether or when Plaintiff’s emails are intended by her to be treated as filings; her
recent emails asking for dismissal (resulting in the February 16 order) are an example.
To address this problem, the Court hereby reminds Plaintiff:
(1)

The Court does not become involved in discovery related disputes unless and until
there is a motion to compel. Plaintiff’s recent inquiries about her deposition (and
prior discovery related communications) are not appropriate to be addressed to the
Clerk’s Office but must be directed to counsel for Defendant. Plaintiff is
reminded to refrain from emailing discovery related materials and inquiries to the
Clerk’s Office.

(2)

Plaintiff must clearly label material that she is submitting to the Clerk’s Office for
filing (to be placed on the docket). Plaintiff is advised that any such email that
contains something that she intends as a filing must comply with Local Rule Cv
7.2 The email must be addressed to [e-mail] and
contain “Pro Se Filing For Case No. 18-cv-355” in the subject line. The email
must include the document intended to be filed (to be placed on the docket) as a
separate PDF attachment to the email. The specific request for relief, response,
reply, etc. (as governed by Local Rule Cv 7) must be contained in the PDF
attachment and not in the body of the email. The PDF attachment must: (1)
contain a case caption that specifies the Court where the filing is made, the names
of the parties and the case number; (2) contain a title that concisely describes the
document; and (3) be signed (electronic or actual) by the filer and include a
signature block that identifies the filer’s name, address, telephone number and
email address.

(3)

Court employees are not authorized to give legal advice and may not engage in
discussion with litigants regarding legal or factual issues of a case. Inquiries to
the Clerk’s Office staff must be restricted solely to a brief inquiry regarding
purely procedural matters (such as how to make a filing).

(4)

Plaintiff may not communicate with the Clerk’s Office ex parte by attempting to
discuss (by argument or otherwise) the merits of her claim.

If Plaintiff is unable to comply with these guidelines Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court
will consider an order restricting her communications with the Clerk’s Office and/or directing
the Clerk’s Office to disregard any communications that do not comply with these protocols.

2

A link to the Court’s local rules can be found at rid.uscourts.gov/rules-and-resources.

3

Case 1:18-cv-00355-WES-PAS Document 48 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 775

/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
February 22, 2022

4