Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Jones v. Biltoff

United States District Court, D. Kansas

April 16, 2014

JOSEPH LEE JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER BILTOFF, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

SAM A. CROW, Senior District Judge.

On March 26, 2014, this court entered a Memorandum and Order screening the complaint and 12 other documents submitted by plaintiff in this case. The court found that plaintiff had not complied with the statutory filing fee prerequisites and that the complaint fails to state a claim and is frivolous. Plaintiff was given time "to satisfy the filing fee and to show cause why this action should not be dismissed." Instead of following the court's order as to the filing fee and submitting a single response to the order to show cause, Mr. Jones has filed 9 additional papers, including a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal and associated documents. This matter is now before the court upon plaintiff's "Declaration and Affidavit" (Doc. 17); "Declaration" (Doc. 18), Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 19), Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Doc. 20), Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 21), Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 22), Motions for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Docs. 23, 28), and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 24). Having considered these filings, the court finds as follows.

These filings plainly reflect three improper practices by Mr. Jones in his several cases that confuse rather than clarify his claims and thus impede resolution. First, as the court has repeatedly attempted to explain to Mr. Jones, he may not litigate a morass of unrelated claims in a single action. Instead, he may only sue those defendants that were all involved in a single incident or transaction or set of transactions in a single complaint. Mr. Jones often improperly discusses and argues aspects of all his cases in whatever case he is currently filing in.

Second, Mr. Jones may not he seek relief from rulings in a case by filing a new case and complaining regarding his other case. If Mr. Jones disagrees with rulings in a particular case, he must file for relief in that case or file a proper and timely appeal in that case. If he has difficulty filing something in a case, he must bring that to the attention of the court in that case in a timely manner.

Third, Mr. Jones may not submit improper filings and papers, and his practice of doing so is abusive. The initial pleading, which is the complaint or petition, must contain all claims and allegations to be presented in the case. Filing an initial pleading, and then submitting numerous supplements, declarations, affidavits, exhibits, or other variously-named additions, none of which is a complete Amended Complaint, constitutes improper and abusive filing. Evidence such as affidavits and exhibits should not be submitted until either sought by the court, a dispositive motion is filed, or the matter goes to trial. Proper motions may be filed, when necessary, after the initial pleading. However, motions must have a descriptive title, specify the court action being sought, and contain a factual and legal basis showing the movant is entitled to the requested court action. Similarly, when the court issues a show cause order upon screening that requires a response, a single timely document entitled "Response" or "Response to Court Order" in which all defects are addressed is all that should be filed.

DECLARATION AND AFFIDAVIT (DOC. 17)

The court has considered this document and finds that it is an improper filing, does not appear to be a complete response to the court's screening order, and contains matter that may only be properly presented in a complete Amended Complaint. In this Declaration of Facts, Mr. Jones continues to improperly argue matters that are relevant to a prior case filed by him, Case No. 12-3229. Plaintiff was informed that he is precluded from raising issues regarding Case No. 12-3229 in this case. Any additional facts or issues related to Case No. 12-3229 must have been timely and properly presented in that case or on appeal in that case. Plaintiff's allegations regarding his claims in Case No. 12-3229, including those against defendants Eckhart and Biltoff, will not be considered further in this action.

Plaintiff's allegations that defendant Hoepner failed to e-file documents has changed with each additional filing in which he discusses this claim. If plaintiff wants to sue defendant Hoepner for denial of access to the courts based on Hoepner's alleged failure to e-file documents, he must file an Amended Complaint, or a new separate action, that names Hoepner as the sole defendant and sets forth all claims and allegations against Mr. Hoepner. No other defendant named in this case is alleged to have been involved in this e-filing incident, and Mr. Jones may not continue this lawsuit against all defendants on this ground.

Plaintiff was informed that any allegations regarding the taking of his leg brace must be raised in a single complaint and cannot proceed in this case against all the named defendants. His continuing to make allegations concerning this claim is argumentative, improper, and abusive.

In sum, the court finds that this filing is improper and abusive and does not show cause why this action should not be dismissed.

DECLARATION (DOC. 18)

The court has considered this document and finds it is improper for the same reasons as the previous document.

MOTION TO AMEND (DOC. 19)

Although a motion to amend would be a proper motion at this juncture in this case, this particular motion is not adequate. Mr. Jones has previously been informed that a Motion to Amend must have a complete Amended Complaint attached. He simultaneously requests 1983 forms in this motion. Mr. Jones should have immediately asked the clerk to send him forms, then prepared his Amended Complaint, and then filed this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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