ORDER granting 47 Motion to Strike 46 Amended Complaint, and construed Motion to Strike 48 Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Preston shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 7/1/2015. (JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ANNE PRESTON, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 8:12-CV-2287-T-17MAP PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER This cause is before the Court on: Dkt. 46 Dkt. 47 Dkt. 48 Amended Complaint Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint Defendants move to strike the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), as the Amended Complaint was filed without Defendants’ consent and without leave of Court. Defendants also request that their Motion to Strike be granted in that this case, as well as the related case [Case No. 8:12-CV-2288-T-17TGW] were closed two and a half years ago, when the Court dismissed the cases pursuant to the RookerFeldman doctrine. Plaintiff Anne Preston is proceeding pro se in this case. Plaintiff Preston has not filed a response to the Motion to Strike. I. Background The Court previously dismissed this case without prejudice pursuant to the Case No. 8:12-CV-2287-T-17MAP Rooker-Feldman doctrine on December 27, 2012 (Dkt. 19), and closed the case. Subsequent Motions for Reconsideration (Dkts. 20, 24) were denied (Dkt. 26). The Court explained the basis for the Court’s rulings in those Orders. The Court denied Plaintiffs Motion to Stay (Dkt. 27), again explaining that this Court does not have jurisdiction (Dkt. 28). The Court has also denied Plaintiffs Motion to Reopen (Dkt. 31), for Reconsideration (Dkt. 32) and for Clarification (Dkt. 34). (Dkts. 31, 33, 35). The Court further denied Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Reopen (Dkt. 36), Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 38), Second Amended Motion to Reopen (Dkt. 40), Third Amended Motion to Reopen (Dkt. 42), and Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 44). (Dkts. 37, 39, 41,43, 45). II. Standard of Review A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) provides: (f) Motion to Strike. The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. ” In reviewing a Motion to Strike, “a court will not exercise its discretion . unless the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Dennis v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co.. 2006 WL 1000308 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (citing Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp. 216 F.R.D. 689, 691 (M.D. Fla. 2003)). 2 Case No. 8:12-CV-2287-T-17MAP B. Pro Se Status “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States. 148 F.3d 1262,1263 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam). See Trawinski v. United Technologies. 313 F.3d 1295,1297 -1298 (11th Cir. 2002). Although the Court gives liberal construction to the pleadings of gro se litigants, “[the Court] nevertheless ha[s] required them to conform to procedural rules.” Loren v. Sasser. 309 F.3d 1296,1304 (11th Cir. 2002). III. Discussion The Court construes Defendants’ Motion to Strike to apply to the Second Amended Complaint as well as the Amended Complaint. It is undisputed that Defendants did not consent to the filing of the Amended Complaint, and the Court did not grant leave to Plaintiff to file the Amended Complaint. The Court dismissed this case without prejudice, and has denied Plaintiffs Motions to Reopen, and for Reconsideration. the denial of Plaintiffs Motions. The Court has repeatedly explained the basis for Because Plaintiff Preston filed the Amended Complaint without Defendants’ consent, and without leave of court, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Strike. This case was closed in December, 2012, and remains closed. Plaintiff Preston has refused to accept the finality of the Court’s decisions, yet has not sought to appeal those decisions. The Court does not know how to make it any clearer that this Court does not have the power to rule on Plaintiffs complaints against Defendants. The Court reminds Plaintiff Preston that jaro se parties are subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of Case No. 8:12-CV-2287-T-17MAP Florida. The Court draws Plaintiff’s attention to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The Court notifies Plaintiff Preston that there are resources on the Court’s website to assist gro se parties. The Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida are available on the Court’s website, www.flmd.uscourts.aov. The Court directs Plaintiff Preston to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida in the future. Failure to comply may have adverse consequences. The Court notifies Plaintiff Preston that should Plaintiff Preston continue to file frivolous motions that have no chance of success, and should Plaintiff Preston continue to file pleadings such as the Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint, both of which were filed without consent and without leave of court in a closed case, the Court will consider the imposition of a monetary sanction to deter Plaintiff Preston from continuing that conduct. It is possible that Plaintiff may forfeit the privilege of litigating without prefiling review of documents that Plaintiff Preston may want to file in the future, or Plaintiff Preston may be denied leave to file documents in this district until any monetary sanction that is imposed is paid. While the Court looks first to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, the Court has inherent authority to manage its docket. Chambers v. Nasco. 501 U.S. 32 (1991). Although the Court has explained repeatedly that this Court does not have jurisdiction, Plaintiff did not seek review of the Court’s previous Orders in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and has continued to seek relief that this Court cannot grant. The pattern of Plaintiff’s repeated requests for relief after the Court has denied the same motions smacks of bad faith. Plaintiffs motions and pleadings appear to be filed to harass Defendants, and Plaintiffs frivolous motions and pleadings waste the Court’s scarce resources. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff Preston is proceeding pro se; however, era se parties are subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Preston has had her day in court, but Plaintiff Preston is not entitled to anyone 4 Case No. 8:12-CV-2287-T-17MAP else’s day in court. In the event that Plaintiff Preston continues to file motions and pleadings in this closed case, the Court will enter an order to show cause and schedule a hearing to determine the issue of bad faith. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Dkt. 47) is granted. The Amended Complaint (Dkt. 46) and Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 48) are stricken from the docket. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Preston shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. Failure to comply may have adverse consequences, as noted above. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida on this / S ^ cfav of July, 2015. * 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.