Martin then went on with his futile attempt at another run for office in the United States Senate race for the State of Illinois while many of the defendants named in his lawsuit worked on presenting motions for dismissal based on several laws which fully supported their position. Martin spent so much time concentrating on making outrageous radio ads and claims against one of his opponents and not caring about or respecting the court system and the rules which these courts have put in place, that he never responded to the court or the motions filed against his lawsuit. The courts even offered him additional time to respond and in an almost arrogant manner, he refused to respond to the olive branch offered him.
After the Honorable Judge Jeanne E. Scott granted the motions for dismissal due to Martin's lack of response to the motions, Martin claims to have never received any notice from the courts. He claims the Court sent the notices to the wrong address at his Chicago office and they sould have been sent to his New York office. He even goes as far as to claim that the Chicago mail is a month behind in delivery. This claim by Martin (link Martin's Motion to Vacate) is clearly one of his "Dirty Tricks" to try and scam the courts again. All motions have been posted on both Justia.com at http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/illinois/ilcdce/3:2009cv03295/47891/ and on the Court's "Pacer" system site (read Judge Scott's opinion below or at link Opinion). Further investigation shows that three of the defendants in this case clearly mailed certificates of service to both Martin's Chicago address and his New York address making his claims all that much more bogus.
It's nice to see that the rantings of a lunatic madman who files more frivolous lawsuits than flies in a slaughter house are dismissed by one of our most sacred institutions in the United States, our Court Systems.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
ANDY MARTIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 09-3295
)
WASHINGTON POST CO., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION
JEANNE E. SCOTT, U.S. District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Andy Martin’s
Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal and to Extend Time for Responses (d/e
15) (Motion to Vacate), and Motion to Clarify Notice in This Lawsuit (d/e
14) (Motion to Clarify). The Court interprets the Motion to Clarify as a
notice to the Court that future correspondence, including notices and
orders, should be sent to the Martin’s post office box in New York, New
York, listed on the Motion to Clarify. The Court allows this request and
directs the Clerk to change the address to which correspondence will be sent
to the New York post office box. The Motion to Clarify is denied to the
extent that he seeks any other relief.
Dockets.Justia.com
2
The Motion to Vacate states that Martin seeks relief from this Court’s
Text Order entered February 10, 2010 (Dismissal Text Order) pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The Dismissal Text Order dismissed
Martin’s claims against Defendants Daniel Morse, Scott Shirley, John
Gilchrist, and Montgomery County, Maryland. A Rule 59 motion is not
appropriate at this time because there has been no final judgment entered.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Dismissal Text Order was an interlocutory order.
Martin has alleged claims against several other Defendants that have not yet
been resolved. Notice of Removal (d/e 1), attached Complaint; see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b). Relief under Rule 59, therefore, is not appropriate.
The Court, however, may reconsider any interlocutory order at any
time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court, therefore, interprets the Motion to
Vacate as a motion to reconsider the Dismissal Text Order. Motions for
reconsideration, “serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de Credit
Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). Martin
has failed to demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact and has failed to
present any newly discovered evidence that merits reconsideration.
Martin filed this action in Sangamon County, Illinois, Circuit Court.
3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 2 of 7
3
Complaint, at 1. Defendant Morse removed this action to this Court.
Notice of Removal. From December 18, 2009, to December 21, 2009,
Defendants Morse, Shirley, and Montgomery County, Maryland, filed
Motions to Dismiss on various grounds (d/e 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12). Martin was
obligated to respond to the Motions within fourteen days of service. If he
did not do so, he was deemed to have no objection to the Motions. Local
Rule 7.1(B)(2). Martin did not respond within the required fourteen days.
This Court then specifically directed Martin to respond to these Motions by
January 18, 2010, or the Court would deem that he had no objection to the
Motions, and the Court would rule on the Motions without further notice
to the parties. Text Order entered January 8, 2010. Martin did not
respond by January 18, 2010.
Defendant Gilchrist also filed a pro se request to dismiss the case
against him. The Clerk erroneously docketed the request as an answer
rather than a motion to dismiss. The Court directed the Clerk to docket
Gilchrist’s motion correctly as a motion to dismiss and send a copy to
Martin, and the Court directed Martin to respond by February 8, 2010.
Text Order entered January 21, 2010. The Clerk then correctly docketed
Gilcrhist’s motion (d/e 13) and sent a copy to Martin. Martin did not
3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 3 of 7
4
respond to Gilchrist’s Motion to Dismiss, or to any of the Motions to
Dismiss filed by any of these parties.
On February 10, 2010, this Court entered the Dismissal Text Order
dismissing the claims against these Defendants. The dismissal was proper.
Martin failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(B)(2), and so, was deemed to
have no objection to any of these Motions. This Court then gave Martin
additional time to respond, but he simply failed to act. The Court sees no
basis to reconsider given his failure to comply with the Local Rules or the
orders of this Court. The Court, therefore, denies the Motion.
Martin complains that he did not receive any notices or orders from
this Court. Martin listed on his Complaint his address as a post office box
in New York, New York, and he also listed an additional address in Chicago,
Illinois. Notice of Removal (d/e 1), attached Complaint, at 17. Martin,
however, listed only his Chicago, Illinois, address on the Summons to be
served on the Defendants. Notice of Removal, attached Summons. Martin
was required to place his correct address on the Summons. Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 101(a). The Chicago address, therefore, was an appropriate
address for notices in this case. The Clerk of this Court properly sent
notices to the addresses listed on the Summons. There was no error.
3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 4 of 7
1Local Rule 5.6 became effective on January 20, 2010. Emergency Order
Adopting Local Rules, entered January 20, 2010. Before that date, this Court’s
Administrative Procedures required pro se plaintiffs to seek leave of court to participate
in the electronic filing system. Administrative Procedures for Filing, Signing, and
Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means in Civil Cases (Revised October 22,
2007), § I.B.2.
5
Martin complains that he requested notice by facsimile transmission
or email, but none was provided. The Complaint states under the signature
block in all capitals and bold print, “SERVICE OF NOTICES IS
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL.” Complaint, at 17.
This Court, however, only provides electronic notice through this Court’s
CM/ECF electronic filing system. A pro se plaintiff must secure leave of
court to participate in the electronic filing system. Local Rule 5.6.1 Martin
did not file a motion for leave to participate in the electronic filing system.
He, therefore, was not entitled to receive notice from this Court by
electronic means. Martin is proceeding pro se, and so, is responsible to
review and comply with this Court’s rules and procedures. He did not
receive electronic notice because he failed to comply with those rules and
procedures. In the future, he should review these matters more carefully.
There was no error.
Martin claims that the docket sheet for this case on the public PACER
system contains nothing after December 21, 2009, so he could not have
3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 5 of 7
6
received notice from that source. He attaches to the Motion to Vacate a
printout from PACER dated February 15, 2010. Motion to Vacate, Exhibit
D, PACER Docket Sheet. The attached PACER Docket Sheet only shows
entries from the date of removal, November 10, 2009, to December 21,
2009. The Clerk’s computer technical staff has reviewed the docket sheet
on PACER and determined that all of the docket entries in this case are
available on PACER, including those entered after December 21, 2009.
Martin could have produced the PACER Docket Sheet attached to the
Motion to Vacate by placing date restrictions in his PACER search request
to limit the request to entries between November 10, 2009, and December
21, 2009. The PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt (Transaction
Receipt) would have stated whether Martin erroneously placed date
restrictions in his request. Unfortunately, Martin did not include the full
Transaction Receipt with Exhibit D, so the Court cannot ascertain whether
he made this specific error, or some other error, when he viewed the Court’s
docket on PACER. Again, Martin is proceeding pro se, and so, is
responsible to learn how to use PACER correctly. In the future, Martin
should review the correct procedures for using PACER if he wishes to secure
complete information through this source. Again, however, he has
3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 6 of 7
presented no error of law or fact, or newly discovered evidence that merits
reconsideration. The Court sees no basis for reconsidering the Dismissal
Text Order. Martin’s request is denied.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin’s Motion to Vacate Order of
Dismissal and to Extend Time for Responses (d/e 15) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify Notice in This Lawsuit (d/e 14) is ALLOWED
in part and DENIED in part. The Clerk is directed to change Martin’s
mailing address for notices, orders, and other correspondence regarding this
case to: Andy Martin, P.O. Box 1851, New York, New York 10150-1851.
The Motion to Clarify is otherwise denied.
IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED.
ENTER: February 19, 2010
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Jeanne E. Scott
JEANNE E. SCOTT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 7 of 7
