Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zied-Campbell v. Richman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 23, 2008

MINDY JAYE ZIED-CAMPBELL, PLAINTIFF
v.
ESTELLE RICHMAN, SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE; FREDERICK LANDAU, DIRECTOR OF YORK COUNTY ASSISTANCE OFFICE; DOES 1-25; AND STEPHANIE LUDWIG, SUPERVISOR OF YORK COUNTY ASSISTANCE OFFICE, DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chief Judge Kane

ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff Mindy Jaye Zied-Campbell's motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 26, 2008, order denying without prejudice her previous motions*fn1 for failure to comply with the Local Rules and to renew the arguments advanced in her request*fn2 for emergency relief (Doc. No. 103), and Defendants' brief in opposition thereto (Doc. No. 110). In its previous order, the Court denied without prejudice several of Plaintiff's motions on the grounds that she had not complied with the Local Rules.*fn3 (Doc. No. 101.) The Court directed Plaintiff to review the Local Rules, particularly Local Rule 7.1, which sets forth the components of a properly filed motion, and Local Rule 7.5, which establishes the requirement that, except in circumstances not applicable here, a motion must be followed within ten (10) days by a brief in support thereof. Rather than complying with the rules and following this Court's order, Plaintiff submitted another non-complying and unsupported motion: the motion lacks a certificate of concurrence or a proposed form order (or orders), and no brief in support of the motion was ever filed. In her motion, Plaintiff reasons that the Local Rules do not -- or should not -- apply to her. The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff's arguments because, as Defendants point out, "from [Plaintiff's] motion, it appears that her failure to abide by the local rules is prompted, not by her inability to understand or comply with them, but because she disagrees with them." (Doc. No. 110, at 8.)

Plaintiff is again directed to review the Local Rules and to make a good faith attempt to follow them.*fn4 Any motion filed by the Plaintiff must comply with Local Rule 7.1: it must be in writing and be accompanied with a certificate of concurrence and a proposed order (or orders) which, if the motion were granted, would provide Plaintiff with the relief that she seeks. See M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.1. Insofar as Plaintiff finds it difficult to confer with opposing counsel on the telephone to ascertain whether Defendants will concur in a motion that she intends to file, Plaintiff is invited and encouraged to use alternative means of communication, such as mail or email. To the extent that Plaintiff requests alternative forms of relief in any given motion and finds it complicated to draft a single proposed form order that would grant her all the relief she seeks (see Doc. No. 103, at 10), Plaintiff may choose to attach more than one proposed order as long as the proposed orders, in the aggregate, amount to "a form of order which, if approved by the court, would grant the relief sought in the motion." See M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.1. Finally, if Plaintiff files a motion for which a brief in support must be filed -- which is for all but three types of motions, see M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.5 -- then she must submit an appropriate brief in support with the motion or within ten (10) days of the motion's filing, unless the Court instructs otherwise. M.D. Pa. L.R. 1.3 & 7.5; see also M.D. Pa. L.R. 5.1(h) ("Each motion and each brief shall be a separate document.").

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's "motion to strike defendants' second opposition brief as being untimely filed and redundant." (Doc. No. 111.) Because Plaintiff never filed a brief in support of her motion, as required by Local Rule 7.5, Defendant's obligation to file a brief in opposition was not triggered, see M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.6.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 103) is DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not entertain another motion to reconsider its February 26, 2008, order requiring compliance with the Local Rules (Doc. No. 101), and will not entertain a motion to reconsider this order. Should Plaintiff wish to renew any arguments raised in her original motions that were denied without prejudice (Doc. Nos. 92, 94, & 95), she is directed to file a motion or motions conforming with the Local Rules no later than Friday, May 2, 2008, and she is instructed to submit briefs supporting said motion(s) no later than Friday, May 16, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. No. 111) is DENIED.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff's obligation to file objections to Magistrate Judge Blewitt's August 6, 2007, Report and Recommendation has been stayed. (See Doc. No. 107.) The Court will issue a briefing schedule for objections to the Report and Recommendation by way of a separate order.

Yvette Kane, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.