Filed: Sep. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2019
Summary: RULING AND ORDER JAMES D. CAIN, JR. , District Judge . Before the Court is "Objections to Memorandum Order Denying [47] Motion to strike [28] and Motion for Rehearing Under Rule 15.e." (Rec. #68). Plaintiff Neal E. Havlik seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Order 1 which denied Havlik's Motion to Strike. 2 Havlik has filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. He complains that he received inadequate and/or improper medical and dental care at the F
Summary: RULING AND ORDER JAMES D. CAIN, JR. , District Judge . Before the Court is "Objections to Memorandum Order Denying [47] Motion to strike [28] and Motion for Rehearing Under Rule 15.e." (Rec. #68). Plaintiff Neal E. Havlik seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Order 1 which denied Havlik's Motion to Strike. 2 Havlik has filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. He complains that he received inadequate and/or improper medical and dental care at the Fe..
More
RULING AND ORDER
JAMES D. CAIN, JR., District Judge.
Before the Court is "Objections to Memorandum Order Denying [47] Motion to strike [28] and Motion for Rehearing Under Rule 15.e." (Rec. #68). Plaintiff Neal E. Havlik seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Order1 which denied Havlik's Motion to Strike.2
Havlik has filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. He complains that he received inadequate and/or improper medical and dental care at the Federal Corrections Institution at Oakdale, Louisiana ("FCIO").
On March 22, 2019, Havlik filed a motion to strike the declaration of Michaela Chano and the defendant's response to Havlik's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.3 In her Memorandum Order, the Magistrate Judge noted that Havlik's motion to strike was received by the court nearly one month after a Report and Recommendation was issued that recommended that Havlik's motion for preliminary injunction be denied.4 The Magistrate Judge also noted that Havlik filed a second motion for preliminary injunction on the same grounds.5 Even considering the second motion, the Magistrate Judge concluded that there was no legal basis to grant the relief sought by Havlik.6
In his instant motion, Havlik seeks to strike "ALL filings by the government."7 Havlik complains that the medical records are incomplete, the Government documents are hearsay, and that Chano's declarations are not true.8 Havlik further accuses the Government of fraud and perjury because the Government provided supplemental discovery documents. Havlik seems to be arguing that because the Government provided these supplemental documents, its actions are equivalent to intentionally and fraudulently withholding the documents.
The Government informs the Court that the complete medical records attached to the Government's Opposition to Plaintiff's Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction constitute the complete records that address the allegations set forth in that particular motion.9 Considering that Havlik fails to show that record is incomplete, the Court finds no basis in law or fact to reverse the Magistrate Judge's Order granting the motion to strike.
The Court notes that Havlik has filed numerous motions that are repetitive and redundant. A review of the record indicates the following:
• Complaint filed 5/23/201810
• Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 10/15/2018;11 Denied.12
• Motion for Summary Judgment filed 11/21/2018;13 Denied.14
• Motion to Compel filed 12/10/2018;15 Denied.16
• Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 2/26/2019;17
• Motion to Strike filed 3/22/2019;18 Denied.19
• Motion for Default Judgment;20 Denied.21
• Motion for Summary Judgment;22
• Motion for Default Judgment;23 Denied.24
• Appeal of Magistrate Decision;25
• Appeal of Magistrate Decision;26
• Motion for Default Judgment;27 Denied.28
• Motion to Find Defendants in Contempt of Court for Withholding Evidence;29 Denied.30
• Motion to find defendants in Contempt for Violating an Act of Congress;31 Denied.32
• Motion to Appoint Counsel;33 Denied.34
• Motion to Compel Discovery.35
• Emergency Motion to Expedite Proceedings, and/or Third Motion for Preliminary Injunction.36
• Motion to Correct Docket.37
• Motion to Amend Complaint;38 Denied.39
• Objection and Appeal of Magistrate Decision.40
• Motion to Strike Defendant's 7 Months Late Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.41
• Objection and Appeal of Electronic Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to Amend His Complaint Under Rule 15(e).42
• Objection and Appeal of Electronic Order [114], Denying [86] Motion to Find Defendants in Contempt of Court Under Rule 15(e).43
• Objections and Appeal of Electronic Order [115], Denying Motion to Find Defendants in Contempt for Violating an Act of Congress [87] under Rule 15(e).44
The Court's review of the record as shown above causes us great concern; we find that Havlik is a prolific filer because of the numerous filings in this matter that are repetitive, redundant and frivolous. Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PRLA") to deter frivolous prisoner litigation by instituting economic costs for prisoners to file suit. Patton v. Jefferson Corr. Ctr., 136 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 864 (8th Cir. 1997)). In that same vein, in order to deter Havlik's frequent, duplicative, and unnecessary filings, as of this date, the Court will require Havlik to seek leave of Court prior to filing any future motions in this matter. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Decision is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Havlik shall file a motion for leave of court prior to filing any future motions or any filings that this Court deems to be a motion; failure to follow this Court's order will result in the motion being stricken from the record.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED.
