IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 24, 2009
CHADERICK INGRAM, PLAINTIFF,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment, motion for default judgment, two requests for enforcement, and three motions related to entry of judgment. One of the motions requests relief by a magistrate judge not assigned to this action. By order filed June 26, 2009, defendant was granted an extension of time to August 18, 2009 to respond to the complaint. All of plaintiff's motions and requests are therefore premature. The motions also do not comply with Local Rule 78-230 and Local Rule 56-260(a).
In the span of less than one month, plaintiff has filed seven motions. Such frivolous filing imposes an undue burden on the court and opposing counsel. Plaintiff shall therefore be limited in future filings.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motions and requests (docket nos. 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 21) are denied without prejudice.
2. The multiplicity of plaintiff's filings are a burden on both the court and defendants and impede the proper prosecution of this action. Plaintiff's future filings shall therefore be limited. Plaintiff may only file the following documents:
a. Proofs of service regarding summons;
b. One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as such);
c. Only one motion pending at any time. Such motion must be properly noticed for hearing. Plaintiff is limited to one memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition; and
d. One set of objections to any findings and recommendations.
Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly filed documents being stricken from the record and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.