The opinion of the court was delivered by: SYLVIA RAMBO, Senior District Judge
The background of this order is as follows. Plaintiff, an
inmate at SCI-Greene in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, commenced this
action on September 13, 2001. Following a jury trial, the jury
returned a verdict for Defendants on August 2, 2005. On August 2,
2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Mistrial/New Trial (Doc. 272).
Since that time both Plaintiff and Defendants have requested
various enlargements of time in which to file their respective
supplemental, opposition, and reply briefs, which the court has
for the most part granted.
With respect to Plaintiff specifically, the court issued an
Order on August 12, 2005 (Doc. 275) that denied Plaintiff's
August 11, 2005 Motion to Extend Time to file a brief in support
of Plaintiff's Motion for Mistrial/New Trial (Doc. 274).
Plaintiff had requested more time in order to develop additional
arguments regarding why a new trial should be granted. The court
denied Plaintiff's request for a time extension as premature
because the allotted time for filing a brief in support of
Plaintiff's motion would not expire until August 22, 2005. The
court also stated in the August 12, 2005 Order that if Plaintiff
filed a new motion and comprehensive supporting brief containing
all of Plaintiff's arguments by August 22, 2005, his first motion would be deemed to be withdrawn and the
court would rule only on the all-inclusive motion.
However, Plaintiff subsequently sent a letter to the court,
dated August 21, 2005 (Doc. 269), again requesting an extension.
Plaintiff claimed that his transfer to SCI-Greene during that
time resulted in mail delays that prevented him from timely
learning of various documents filed in this case. Therefore, on
August 31, 2005, the court granted Plaintiff an extension of time
in which to file an amended motion and supporting all-inclusive
brief (Doc. 281). Plaintiff filed a Motion for New
Trial/Reconsideration of Judgment with brief in support on
September 2, 2005 (Doc. 284).
Then, in a letter dated September 6, 2005 (Doc. 288) Plaintiff
indicated that he had not received the court's August 12, 2005
order when he submitted his supporting brief and requested
additional time in which to file a "supplemental" brief raising
issues that he had not yet added to his Motion for Mistrial/New
Trial. Plaintiff also sent a letter dated September 13, 2005
(Doc. 289) in which he asked the court to have the Clerk make
copies of exhibits filed with his motion and again requested
additional time in which to file a "supplemental" brief. On
September 22, 2005, the court denied Plaintiff's requests to file
supplemental briefs. (See Doc. 290.) The court also informed
Plaintiff that the court is not responsible and has no duties to
make copies of documents for Plaintiff.
Defendant Kelly Gallagher filed an opposition brief on
September 20, 2005 (Doc. 287) and Defendants Louis Sewell, George
Miko, Alfred Roxby, Joseph Olszyk, and William Bowden filed their
opposition brief on October 3, 2005 (doc. 297). On October 17,
2005, Plaintiff requested an extension of time in which to file his reply brief (Doc. 301) stating that some of his documents had
been "confiscated" by prison officials. The court granted the
extension in an Order dated October 19, 2005 (Doc. 302); however,
Plaintiff's reply brief was filed on October 21, 2005 (Doc. 303),
several days before the extended deadline of November 3, 2005.
Plaintiff also submitted a motion and brief to reinstate action
(Doc. 291) and motion and brief for relief from judgment (Doc.
292) on September 28, 2005. By Order dated September 29, 2005
(Doc. 296) the court denied these motions and stated the
Allegations concerning the competency of counsel is
not a basis to overturn a verdict in a civil suit.
Plaintiff's recourse is through a separate civil suit
in a county court.
Allegations of discovery abuse will not be
entertained. The record of this case is replete with
discovery issues all of which have been addressed and
will not be reargued.
Allegations that attorneys involved in this cases
committed criminal offenses are more appropriately
addressed by the criminal prosecutors at the state or
federal level and not by this court.
Plaintiff has now submitted a Motion for Enlargement of Time to
Respond to Court's Order of October 19, 2005 (Doc. 304). In this
motion, Plaintiff again references the confiscation of documents,
which were apparently inventoried then returned to him, requests
the court to have the Clerk make copies of exhibits he filed with
his original Motion for Mistrial/New Trial, and indicates that he
wishes to make additional arguments, including arguments
regarding conduct of attorneys involved in the case. Plaintiff
also bases his request on the fact that he did not "receive a
copy of this court's warning issued" in the August 12, 2005
Order. The court has previously ruled on all of these issues, in most
cases, more than once. The court will not continue to entertain
duplicative motions and requests; any additional motions or
requests regarding issues on which the court has already ruled
will be deemed frivolous. Moreover, the court's October 19, 2005
Order may not be construed by Plaintiff as an invitation to
submit an amended reply brief or opportunity to make a
supplemental motion or to reargue issues that have already been
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1) Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to the
Court's Order of October 19, 2005 is DENIED; and
2) the Court will consider this matter ripe for disposition as
of October 21, 2005, the date Plaintiff's reply brief (Doc. 303)
was filed, and will issue an Order in due course.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...