Owens v. Pearl River Cmty. Coll.
| Decision Date | 05 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:21-CV-140-KS-MTP |
| Parties | RASHARD OWENS PLAINTIFF v. PEARL RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
This cause comes before the Court on all pending motions in this action, each of which will be addressed and ruled upon herein. Be advised, that this Order contains rulings on the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, but also affords Plaintiff an opportunity to seek leave to amend his Complaint with a proper motion. Should Plaintiff decide to do so Plaintiff is well advised to take guidance from the rulings contained herein when drafting his proposed amended pleading that must be attached to any future motion.
Before addressing the motions, the Court will begin with a brief background and procedural history of this case.
Plaintiff was a student at Defendant Pearl River Community College (“PRCC”). He alleges that he suffers from Asperger's Syndrome, as well as numerous other mental and physical conditions, and that the school violated his constitutional rights and committed various torts by discriminating against him, harassing him, and retaliating against him. Plaintiff initiated these proceedings on October 25, 2021 by filing an 82-page Complaint [1] against PRCC and various school officials in their official and individual capacities.
Despite having not yet entered the discovery phase, the procedural history of this case is convoluted. The Court granted [3] Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [2], and the United States Marshals served or attempted to serve process on thirteen Defendants [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [22].
On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings [24], asking the Court to stay this case indefinitely. Plaintiff alleged that he had been physically and mentally incapacitated for the previous 25 months, despite having drafted and filed an 82-page Complaint [1].
On December 29, 2021, Defendants filed two Motions to Dismiss [25] [27], and the Court set a briefing schedule [29]. On January 3, 2022, Defendants filed a Response [31] to Plaintiff's Motion to Stay [24], opposing it.
On January 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed two Motions to Seal [32] [33], which the Court denied [34] for various reasons. On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave for Additional Time to File Amended Complaint [35], which the Court denied without prejudice [37]. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Seal [36] the memorandum of law and exhibits supporting the denied motion, which the Court granted [37].
On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed six more motions [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. First, he filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply [39] to Defendants' response [31] in opposition of his Motion to Stay, seeking additional time to reply. Second, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Issue Summons [40] and to order the United States Marshals to serve process on Defendant Pearl River Community College. Third, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Additional Time to File Amended Complaint [41], asking the Court to allow him until July 11, 2022 to amend his Complaint and urging the Court to grant his original Motion to Stay. Fourth, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal [42] certain exhibits that he wished to file in support of his Complaint and possibly his Motion to Stay [24]. Fifth, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [43] to Defendants' motions to dismiss until July 11, 2022. Sixth, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal [44] certain exhibits to his Motion for Leave for Extension of Time to Respond [43]. Defendants opposed [45] [46] [47] Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Time to File Amended Complaint [41] and Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [43].
On January 18, 2022, the Court granted [48] Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [43] in part, extending Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [25] [27] to February 2, 2022. The Court also denied Plaintiff's Motion to Seal [44] certain exhibits to his Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [43].
On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [49] to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [25] [27]. Once again, Plaintiff alleged that he was physically and mentally incapacitated, despite his prolific filings in this case. On February 7, 2022, the Court entered a Text Order holding briefing in abeyance until a hearing could be held on Plaintiff's second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [49]. On February 10, 2022, the Court entered an Order [51] setting a hearing for February 24, 2022. The Court instructed the parties to be prepared to present any argument or evidence they wished to present on Plaintiff's second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [49].
On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff had a subpoena [52] issued for a witness for the hearing, and on February 18, 2022, he filed the return [53] of the executed subpoena.
On February 22, 2022 - less than forty-eight hours before the scheduled hearing - Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue [54]. He argued that he could not appear, citing the same alleged physical and mental conditions that he has repeatedly claimed prevent him from responding to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [25] [27] and otherwise pursuing this litigation.
On February 23, 2022, the Court denied [55] the Motion to Continue [54]. The Court noted that despite claiming to be incapacitated, Plaintiff had actively pursued this case, filing multiple documents and motions with the Court over a few months. The Court also noted that Plaintiff had subpoenaed a witness for the hearing.
On February 24, 2022, the Court commenced a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [49]. Plaintiff called one witness, his mother, and he spent approximately three and a half hours questioning her. Defendant crossexamined her for approximately 5-10 minutes. The Court adjourned and set the hearing to resume on March 8, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. The Court subsequently entered an Order [56] limiting Plaintiff to only two more witnesses and imposing certain time limits on the parties.
On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Continuance of Hearing and Emergency Relief Due to Decreased Health [60]. On the same day, he filed three Notices [61] [62] [63] of his intent to serve subpoenas and their executed returns [65] [66] [67]. On the morning of March 8, 2022 - the day the Court had set to continue the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [49] - Plaintiff filed a Notice [68] that he would be absent from the hearing, alleging the same mental and physical infirmities as in his previous filings.
In an Order [69] entered on the morning of March 8, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for a Continuance of Hearing and Emergency Relief Due to Decreased Health [60]. The Court related the lengthy procedural history of this matter and addressed Plaintiff's arguments one-by-one. Among other things, the Court noted that Plaintiff has repeatedly filed with the Court documents, many of which are lengthy, despite claiming to be mentally and physically incapacitated. See [24], [32], [33], [35], [36], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [49], [54], [60]. The Court also noted Plaintiff's subpoenas, see [52], [53], [61], [62], [63], [65], [66], [67], and his performance at the hearing of February 24, 2022. All these factors directly and decisively contradict Plaintiff's claims of incapacity.
On the afternoon of March 8, 2022, the Court resumed the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [49]. Plaintiff did not appear. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance [49] in a bench ruling, and later entered a written Order [70], which also denied Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Motions to Dismiss and set a briefing schedule on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [25] [27]. Plaintiff never filed a response to Defendants' motions.
This case has been pending for six months, and it is time to get affairs in order. Based on the Court's prior rulings, there will be no unnecessary delays, and the parties shall work expeditiously to get the pleadings closed in this matter so that discovery may begin. To facilitate this effort, the Court now rules on all currently pending motions as follows:
A. Motion to Stay Proceedings [CM/ECF Doc. No. 24]
In this motion, filed on December 21, 2021, Plaintiff seeks an open-ended stay of the proceedings until such time “that Plaintiff's physical and mental health support the rigor and return of representing himself most effectively.” [24] at p. 1. The Court cannot manage its docket with open-ended stays in place. There are rules and deadlines necessary to serve the purposes of both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our Local Rules. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (); L.U. Civ. R. 1 (“The underlying principle of the Rules is to make access to a fair and efficient court system available and affordable to all citizens.”). In addition, “federal courts are vested with the inherent power ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.'” Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).
The numerous motions and requests for stays and continuances are not helping this proceeding to be speedy, efficient, or inexpensive; they are prolonging the matter. Again,...
To continue reading
Request your trial