Craig Brown v. Michael Ferrara

2012 | Cited 0 times | D. Maine | March 28, 2012

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

By way of this Order, the Court addresses two of the multiple motions pending on the docket: (1) Plaintiff's Objection to Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate SCR-083-2009 & RODC-PA-00047-2009 (Docket # 344) and (2) Defendant's Motion to Stay Further Filing (Docket # 355).

With respect to Plaintiff's Objection to the March 16, 2012 Order by Magistrate Judge Rich (Docket # 329), the Court has engaged in a de novo review and consideration of the March 16, 2012 decision of the Magistrate Judge The Court concurs with the decision for the reasons set forth therein. The Court further notes that nothing in the decision in clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Thus, the Court determines that no further proceedings are necessary. In the context of this case, Plaintiff's requests to vacate his state court criminal conviction or the state court order of protection are without merit. Therefore, the Order of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED and the Objection (Docket # 344) is DENIED.

Turning to the Defendant's Motion to Stay Further Filings (Docket # 355), Defendants points to the just-discussed Objection as one of a "barrage of motions" Plaintiff continues to file.

Defendant asks that the Court stay further filings until the Court has had an opportunity to finally rule upon four potentially dispositive summary judgment motions (Docket #s 281, 288, 291 & 293). This Motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART.

At this point, the Court will not enjoin Plaintiff from further filings on this docket. However, the Court reminds Plaintiff that he has been previously warned against making frivolous filings on this docket. (See Orders at Docket #s 203 & 261). By this Order, the Court reiterates those Cok warnings and reminds Plaintiff that filing repetitious motions without awaiting rulings from the Court on motions already on the docket causes unnecessary delay. See Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993). Additionally, Defendant is correct that the deadline for dispositive motions has passed and no party may file further dispositive motions in this case.

The Court will allow Defendants a stay from responding any further motions Plaintiff may file until the Court has issued a final decision on all four pending motions for summary judgment (Docket #s 281, 288, 291 & 293). To the extent that any such motions are filed and not mooted by the Court's decision on summary judgment, Defendants shall respond to any of Plaintiff's motions that remain pending within 21 days of the filing of the Court's final decision on all four motions for summary judgment.

SO ORDERED.

Back to top