Filed: May 28, 2015
Latest Update: May 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike (#73), filed on April 2, 2015. Plaintiff did not file a response to this Motion. This matter is also before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike (#74), filed on April 2, 2015. Plaintiff's Opposition (#76) to Defendants' Motion was filed on April 20, 2015. Defendants' Reply (#78) to Plaintiff's Opposition was filed on April 28, 2015. This matter is also before the Court on Plain
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike (#73), filed on April 2, 2015. Plaintiff did not file a response to this Motion. This matter is also before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike (#74), filed on April 2, 2015. Plaintiff's Opposition (#76) to Defendants' Motion was filed on April 20, 2015. Defendants' Reply (#78) to Plaintiff's Opposition was filed on April 28, 2015. This matter is also before the Court on Plaint..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike (#73), filed on April 2, 2015. Plaintiff did not file a response to this Motion. This matter is also before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike (#74), filed on April 2, 2015. Plaintiff's Opposition (#76) to Defendants' Motion was filed on April 20, 2015. Defendants' Reply (#78) to Plaintiff's Opposition was filed on April 28, 2015. This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Government Intervention (#79), filed on April 29, 2015.
Defendants seek to strike Plaintiff's Judicial Notice filings (#70, #71). In #70, the Plaintiff asks 18 questions of law of the Court. In #71, Plaintiff requests that the Court take Judicial Notice of the Defendants' allegedly unconstitutional conduct, and asks an additional four questions of law regarding "Prospective Relief." In civil matters, it is the burden of the Plaintiff to identify the issues in dispute, present the supporting law, and request the appropriate relief of the Court. It is not the obligation of the Court to answer legal questions posed by the parties. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Judicial Notice filings (#70, #71) are not proper.
Plaintiff's Motion for Government Intervention (#79) requests that the United States Attorney, the Department of Justice, and the Inspector General intervene in the Plaintiff's case in order to investigate the Plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff alleges that these organizations have the right to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Plaintiff claims that the intervention is relevant to allow him to gather evidence or documentation that demonstrate that the holdings Plaintiff listed in his Judicial Notice filings (#70, #71) are binding.
FRCP 24 is designed to let parties that wish to intervene in a case in which those parties have an interest to do so. The Rule is not designed to require parties to enter a case for the purpose of conducting an investigation. The instant action has not yet proceeded to the discovery stage, but upon doing so, the Plaintiff will have the opportunity to request relevant evidence and documentation that may support his case. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Strike (#73) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Strike (#74) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Government Intervention (#79) is denied.
