HENRY T. WINGATE, District Judge.
BEFORE THIS COURT are the following post-judgment motions: plaintiff's Motion to Issue Overdue Orders
Plaintiff herein is Larry D. Christmas Jr., acting pro se
The United States Supreme Court specifically cautioned pro se litigants that:
Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004).
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007).
Throughout the three-and-a-half-year history of this case, plaintiff has repeatedly failed to attend hearings set by this court and has engaged in other conduct prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For example, in its June 1, 2016 Order to Show Cause [Docket no. 10], this court ordered that the plaintiff must show cause why his case should not be dismissed because he failed to attend a telephonic scheduling conference. On January 5, 2018, this court dismissed Plaintiff's case without prejudice because he again failed to show up for a hearing set for January 3, 2018. [Docket no. 145]. As this court noted in its Order, plaintiff had requested a continuance close to the date set for a hearing. Despite this court not issuing a ruling, either orally or in writing, either granting or denying his motion, plaintiff did not appear for the hearing. Defendant's counsel had traveled from Memphis, Tennessee to Jackson, Mississippi to attend the hearing. This court also noted in its Order that plaintiff "has shown a clear pattern of contumacious conduct and a stubborn resistance to this court's authority."
This court ultimately showed its largess to plaintiff when it reopened plaintiff's lawsuit. [Docket no. 155]. Plaintiff appeared at a June 15, 2018 show cause hearing. [Docket no. 161]. At that show cause hearing, this court explained to plaintiff that he was responsible for filing a motion to continue and further explained to Plaintiff that "he must appear unless the Court grants a continuance." This court then set a hearing on Defendant's summary judgment motion for August 3, 2018.
On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for continuance, which this court did not address before the hearing. [Docket no. 159]. Plaintiff again failed to appear for the August 3, 2018 hearing. Defendant's counsel had once again traveled from Memphis, Tennessee to Jackson, Mississippi to attend the hearing.
This court again ordered plaintiff to appear on January 18, 2019 to explain to the court why he had once again failed to appear for the August 3, 2018 hearing. This court also awarded Defendant's counsel his fees and costs for appearing on August 3, 2018.
Plaintiff filed a motion for continuance on January 17, 2019 [Docket no. 163], one day before the scheduled hearing, and then did not appear at the January 18, 2019 hearing. This court, dismayed with the continuing and serial disrespect that plaintiff has shown the orders issued by this court, dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice in its April 15, 2019 Order. [Docket no. 165].
Plaintiff's first motion, his motion to issue overdue orders
Plaintiff asserts that this court has made various mistakes and issued incorrect orders. Plaintiff is again trying to lay the blame for his failures to attend various hearings at the feet of the court, not himself.
Plaintiff is required to follow the orders of this court, while this court is not required to obey his wishes. Plaintiff has been cautioned on many different occasions that the filing of a motion to continue does not obviate his requirement to attend the hearing he is seeking to continue. Only an order, issued by the court, granting the requested continuance excuses the absence of a party. This court issued no such orders on the occasions that plaintiff failed to appear. Accordingly, this court, after multiple failures to appear, dismissed plaintiff's lawsuit with prejudice.
This court is not prepared, and will not allow, plaintiff to continue wasting the court's time nor the defendant's money pursuing this lawsuit. Plaintiff is cautioned that further filings in this lawsuit alleging the same unsupported factual allegations against the court and the defendant will result in sanctions by the court against him. This court has already considered the facts and law cited by plaintiff and finds no merit in such. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion must be denied.
Plaintiff next asks this court to reconsider its order dismissing his lawsuit with prejudice [Docket no. 165]. Plaintiff cites Rule 52(b)
Fifth Circuit precedent provides guidance on motions to reconsider:
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pham, 193 F.R.D. 493, 494 (S.D. Miss. 2000).
Plaintiff has not provided this court with any new authority, newly discovered facts, nor evidence of a manifest injustice. This court finds that plaintiff's sole concern is his dissatisfaction with this court's dismissal of his lawsuit due to his own contemptuous behavior. This court cannot, and will not, allow plaintiff to further waste the court's time and the defendant's money in litigating this matter. Accordingly, this court must deny plaintiff's motions.
This court has warned plaintiff before about refiling the same arguments, authorities (or lack thereof), and "factual" basis while asking for this court to review its previous decisions.
Dominguez v. Scott, 265 F.3d 1058 (5th Cir. 2001)
This court has already granted attorney fees to defendant for plaintiff's contemptuous conduct. This court now imposes a further sanction in accordance with Fifth Circuit precedent. Plaintiff is hereby barred from filing any further lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi until he satisfies the court's previous awards to defendant's counsel for attorney fees. This court finds that this is the least onerous sanction that it can now impose on plaintiff. If plaintiff continues to file frivolous motions with this court, then appropriate further sanctions will be entered against plaintiff.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60