McDaniels v. Goff et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting 39 Motion to Strike, granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; finding as moot 46 Motion for Hearing; granting in part 32 Motion for Teleconference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 8/24/2015. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN WAYNE McDANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FNU GOFF, OGDEN CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, TIM SCOTT, MAYOR OF
OGDEN, UTAH (MIKE CALDWELL),
OGDEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S
OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, WILLIAM KENDALL.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case No. 1:14-cv-00124-DN-DBP
District Judge David Nuffer
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendants.

This matter was referred to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Dkt. 38.)
Several motions are currently pending before the Court. Plaintiff Kevin Wayne McDaniels filed
two motions for teleconference. (Dkt. 32, 46.) Additionally, Defendants [FNU] Goff, Tim Scott,
and Mike Caldwell (“Ogden Defendants”) filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s “opposition” to
summary judgment or motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 39.) Finally, Defendant Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”) and William Kendall (collectively “Federal Defendants”) have moved for
an extension of time to answer the Ogden Defendants’ cross-claims. (Dkt. 42.)
I.

ANALYSIS
a. Motions for teleconference
Plaintiff apparently requests permission to attend future hearings in this case

telephonically. (Dkt. 32, 46.) The Court will accommodate this request. Plaintiff is hereby
excused from personally appearing at hearings, unless the Court subsequently orders otherwise.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s motions could be interpreted as requesting oral argument or other
hearing on some of the pending motions. To the extent Plaintiff requests a hearing, the Court
denies the request. No hearing is necessary at this time. The Court is able to decide the pending
motions without oral argument.
b. Motion to strike Plaintiff’s “Opposition”
The Ogden Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s pleading entitled “Motion in Opposition to
Defendants [sic] Motion to Dismiss [or] in the Alternative Summary Judgment” (“Opposition”)
should be denied or stricken. (Dkt. 39.) The Ogden Defendants point out that there is no pending
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Thus, it is unclear what Plaintiff opposes with this
filing. Further, Ogden Defendants argue that to the extent the motion seeks summary disposition
on its own, it fails to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure and Ogden Defendants are unable
to identify the precise relief Plaintiff seeks and the basis for any relief. (Id.) Plaintiff makes no
argument to the contrary. Instead, he simply refiled the Opposition at issue as an opposition to
the Ogden Defendants’ motion to strike. (Dkt. 44.)
The Court cannot discern anything from the Opposition that provides a basis to deny the
Ogden Defendants’ motion to strike. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Ogden Defendants
that the “Opposition” should be stricken for failure to comply with Rule 7. In all future filings,
Plaintiff is admonished to clearly set forth the relief he seeks and the basis on which he claims he
is entitled to such relief. While Plaintiff does include monetary and other demands in this motion,
it is not clear whether he is attempting to obtain summary judgment, or simply repeating
demands from his Complaint. If Plaintiff seeks summary judgment, he must bring a proper
motion following the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure and this District’s Local
Rules. While the Court will liberally construe Plaintiff’s submissions, his filings must at least

Page 2 of 4

demonstrate an attempt to comply with the rules, and provide notice of his objectives to the
Defendants, and to the Court.
c. Motion for extension of time to answer cross-claims
Federal Defendants filed a motion seeking an extension of time to answer the crossclaims brought by the Ogden Defendants. (Dkt. 42.) While Ogden Defendants did not oppose the
motion, Plaintiff filed a response asking the Court to “deny defendants [sic] continuance . . . .”
(Dkt. 43.) The majority of Plaintiff’s response has been converted to a motion for default. 1 The
motion for default will be addressed in a separate report and recommendation.
Here, Federal Defendants have demonstrated good cause to extend the deadline to
respond to Ogden Defendants’ cross-claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Ogden Defendants’
cross-claims are interrelated – if not coterminous – with the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.
Thus, judicial economy is best served by requiring Federal Defendants to respond to both
pleadings simultaneously. Accordingly, Federal Defendants may answer, or otherwise respond, to
the cross-claims brought by Ogden Defendants up to and including sixty days after the United
States Attorney for the District of Utah is served with Plaintiff’s Complaint and a summons.
II.

ORDER
Based on the analysis above, the Court hereby:
GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s “Motion for Teleconference” insofar as it seeks

permission for Plaintiff to attend future hearings via telephone. (Dkt. 32.)
FINDS AS MOOT Plaintiff’s second motion for teleconference. (Dkt. 46.)
GRANTS the Ogden Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s “Opposition” to summary
judgment. (Dkt. 39.)

1

(Dkt. 50.)
Page 3 of 4

GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ motion for extension of time to answer. (Dkt. 42.)
Dated this 24th day of August, 2015.

By the Court:

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4