2:25-cv-00154•Williams v. A Corporation et al
Texte intégral
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER-MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, vs. A CORPORATION D/B/A WRITEAPRISONER.COM, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 2:25-cv-00154 District Judge James L. Graham Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry ORDER STRIKING MOTION Plaintiff Williams recently filed a “Motion for an Order Clarifying Debt Collection Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(B)(2) to Cashiers Office Collecting Funds.” (Doc. No. 28.) The motion is very similar to Plaintiff’s previous “Motion to [Request] an Order Specifying Requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(B)(2) to Cashiers Office Collecting Funds,” which he filed on February 4, 2026. (Doc. No. 26.) The Court denied the previous motion on February 17, 2026. (Doc. No. 27.) A second copy of the February 17 Order was mailed to Plaintiff, at his request, on March 5, 2026. The instant motion was filed the next day, via email from the institution where Plaintiff resides. (See Doc. No. 28 at PageID 297.) However, Plaintiff failed, for at least the third time, to properly serve all Defendants with his filing. (See Doc. No. 28 at PageID 300 [indicating in the Certificate of Service that the Clerk’s Office and counsel were served].) The Court previously informed Plaintiff that he was required to serve all Case: 2:25-cv-00154-JLG-CHG Doc #: 33 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 Defendants, including the pro se Defendants, and could not do so by serving counsel that had only appeared for two Defendants. (See Doc. No. 25 at PageID 276-278; Doc. No. 27 at PageID 295-296.) The Court also warned Plaintiff “that the Court may strike and disregard any document that has not been served on Defendants in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.” (Doc. No. 25 at PageID 295-296.) The Court will do so here, as Plaintiff has made no effort to modify his service practices after two warnings. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to STRIKE Plaintiff’s new motion from the record and to RESTRICT it to Court access only. (Doc. No. 28.) IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Caroline H. Gentry Caroline H. Gentry UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 2:25-cv-00154-JLG-CHG Doc #: 33 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Vous vous demandez comment ce texte s’applique à votre situation ?
Consultation gratuite, sans engagement
Décrivez votre situation. Notre équipe vous recontactera par e-mail pour votre consultation.
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.