Eliason et al v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RESTRICTING FILINGS BY PLAINTIFFS. Plaintiffs may file an opposition to the motions to dismiss that is appropriately titled. Additional motions, however, filed by Plaintiffs will not be entertained by the court. Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further motions until the court rules on the pending motions to dismiss. Any additional motions will be lodged by the court on the docket as a filing, but will not be considered or docketed as a motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 5/26/20. (jwt)

Case 1:20-cv-00024-RJS-DBP Document 47 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
BRETT L. ELIASON, KYLIE M. ELIASON,
BRITTNIE L. ELIASON, and VERONIQUE
ELIASON,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RESTRICTING FILINGS BY
PLAINTIFFS
Case No. 1:20-cv-024-RJS

v.
Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby
THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
LATTER-DAY SAINTS, et al.,

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendants.

This matter is referred to the undersigned from Chief Judge Robert Shelby pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 10.) 1 The Supreme Court has provided that district courts
possess inherent powers “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). “The
exercise of an inherent power must be a ‘reasonable response to the problems and needs’
confronting the court's fair administration of justice and cannot be contrary to any express grant
of, or limitation on, the district court's power contained in a rule or statute.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136
S. Ct. 1885, 1888 (2016) (quoting Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 823-824 (1996)).
On May 12, 2020, the court granted Defendants request for leave to file an overlength
motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 41.) As part of that order, the court directed Plaintiffs to file any
opposition to the motion on or before June 19, 2020, affording Plaintiffs additional time to file

1

The case was initially referred under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). On March 24, 2020, the referral was modified to
one under 28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)(B).

Case 1:20-cv-00024-RJS-DBP Document 47 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 3

any relevant opposition due to their pro se status. Since that time Plaintiffs have filed 3 motions
including a motion titled
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS
AND TO COMPEL THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TO BEHOLD THE MOST CORRUPT GROUP OF FELONS IN THE
HISTORY OF MANKIND WHO ARE SITTING IN POSITIONS OF POWER
AND TRUST IN THE UPPER ESCHELONS [sic] OF BOTH CHURCH AND
STATE AND WHO IN REALITY CONSIDER THEMSELVES MEMBERS OF
THE WORLD ELITE AND PROPONENTS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
CONSISTING OF BROTHELS AND WHORES FROM THE NEW WORLD
ORDER OF SATANIC “ILLUMINATED” SOCIETIES WHICH IS USING
SECRET HOLOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY AND PROMISES OF A UTOPIAN
SOCIETY TO DECEIVE HUMANITY INTO BELIEVING THE “PURE
TRUTH” BEHIND WHAT “LIES BENEATH” THE FAÇADE OF THEIR
ALIEN AGENDA CREATED BY FILTHY EVIL SOULS WHOSE GOAL IS
TO EXTEND THE WISHES OF HERR HITLER AND HERR HIMLER BY
REDUCING WORLD POPULATION BY 95% THROUGH MAN-MADE
VIRUSES, POISONED WATER, CHEM TRAILS, AND INTENTIONAL
ASSAULTS BY THE UNITED NATIONS AND ONE WORLD
GOVERNEMNT [sic] AND RELIGION WHICH BLAMES TERRORISTS,
VIRUSES, AND ALIENS FOR THEIR INTENTIONAL ASSAULTS AGAINST
6 BILLION MEMBERS OF HUMANITY. THEY ARE NOW GUILTY OF
CAPITAL TREASON AND CAPITAL MURDER SINCE THE ONE NATION
UNDER GOD WHICH ENSURES THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO
OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY STILL STANDS WITH PRESIDENT
DONALD TRUMP AS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF REPRESENTING THE
GOD AND COUNTRY THEY BETRAY.
(ECF No. 42.) And another motion characterized as a “FOURTH MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE [Defendants]”, “MOTION TO COMPEL SOCIETY TO
QUESTION THE CONTENTS OF [Certain] MEMOIRS” and “MOTION TO RECOGNIZE
THE WONDERFUL LUCK OF THE VICTIMS WHO ALREADY HAVE THE
DEFENDANTS IN CHECKMATE AND TO THEN DISCOVER THAT THEY ARE IN FACT
EXPOSED IN SAID MEMOIRS.” (ECF No. 43.)
These filings by Plaintiffs have caused opposing parties and the court to needlessly
expend resources in this case. Therefore, pursuant to the court’s inherent power to manage the

2

Case 1:20-cv-00024-RJS-DBP Document 47 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 3

cases before it, the court will not entertain any further motions from Plaintiffs until the court
rules on the pending motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. See Overton v. United States, 48
Fed.Appx. 295, 302 (10th Cir.2002) (noting courts have “inherent power to regulate the activities
of … litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances”);
Judd v. Univ. of N.M., 204 F.3d 1041, 1043–445 (10th Cir.2000) (outlining the filings that
warranted certain restrictions); Brumfiel v. U.S. Bank, No. 2015 WL 1906106, at *1 (D. Colo.
Apr. 24, 2015) (ordering that the court “will not entertain any further motions from Plaintiff
seeking post-judgment relief”). The court finds this is a reasonable response to the problems and
needs in this case and promotes the court's fair administration of justice. See Dietz, 136 S. Ct. at
1888.
Plaintiffs may file an opposition to the motions to dismiss that is appropriately titled.
Additional motions, however, filed by Plaintiffs will not be entertained by the court. Plaintiff is
prohibited from filing any further motions until the court rules on the pending motions to
dismiss. Any additional motions will be lodged by the court on the docket as a filing, but will not
be considered or docketed as a motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 26 May 2020.

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

3