AULD v. SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., 14-2620 (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Kansas
Number: infdco20150728977
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA , District Judge . The matter before the court is on appellant's latest motion (Doc. 27 in Case No. 14-2620), which is simply the latest in a long line of motions filed in almost every conceivable court. Appellant's litigation history in this and other courts is outlined in this court opinion, denying his bankruptcy appeal. (Doc. 21 in Case No. 14-2620; Doc. 12 in Case No. 14-2621.) Appellant then filed a motion to reconsider, which this court denied. (D
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA , District Judge . The matter before the court is on appellant's latest motion (Doc. 27 in Case No. 14-2620), which is simply the latest in a long line of motions filed in almost every conceivable court. Appellant's litigation history in this and other courts is outlined in this court opinion, denying his bankruptcy appeal. (Doc. 21 in Case No. 14-2620; Doc. 12 in Case No. 14-2621.) Appellant then filed a motion to reconsider, which this court denied. (Do..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge.
The matter before the court is on appellant's latest motion (Doc. 27 in Case No. 14-2620), which is simply the latest in a long line of motions filed in almost every conceivable court. Appellant's litigation history in this and other courts is outlined in this court opinion, denying his bankruptcy appeal. (Doc. 21 in Case No. 14-2620; Doc. 12 in Case No. 14-2621.) Appellant then filed a motion to reconsider, which this court denied. (Doc. 26 in Case 14-2620; Doc. 19 in Case 14-2621.) The instant motion is, essentially, the same as his motion to reconsider, which this court already denied. Plaintiff offers nothing new—indeed, it is a duplicate of his other motions, except it has five titles including one that is 171 words long. For the reasons in the court's previous orders, the court denies appellant's motion.
Further, in light of appellant's litigation history, the court warns appellant that filing additional motions will likely result in filing restrictions and could result in monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Specifically, if appellant files another baseless motion in these cases, the court intends to impose the following restrictions:
• Auld may file any documents at this courthouse through an attorney; or
• If Auld continues to proceed pro se and wishes to file documents, he must provide a notarized affidavit that verifies, in paragraph form with particularity, how the contemplated document entitles him to relief. That paragraph must be in Auld's own words—not a copy and pasted section from the motions he has previously filed or from the document he wishes to file. The affidavit must also provide notice of the restriction and must provide a copy of the proposed document as an exhibit.
º Upon compliance with the above requirements, the court will review the affidavit and the proposed filing to determine whether it should be accepted for filing. If Auld attempts to file any document that fails to comply with these restrictions, the Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept and/or file the document.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (Doc. 27) is denied.
Source: Leagle
