Grant v. Western Governors University

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
RODERICK MARTIN GRANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN GOVERNORS
UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:25-cv-00631
District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Roderick Martin Grant (“Mr. Grant” or “Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed his
action against Defendant Western Governors University (“Defendant”) on July 31, 2025.1
Currently pending before the court are: (1) Defendant’s Motion for Pre-Filing Order;2 and (2)
Defendant’s Motion to Stay Response Deadlines.3 On November 20, 2025, the court temporarily
granted Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Response Deadlines to allow for complete briefing on
the issue.4 The time for briefing has ended and, for the reasons set forth herein, the court now
recommends that both Motions be granted.
1 ECF No. 1, Complaint.
2 ECF No. 56, Defendant’s Motion for Pre-Filing Order.
3 ECF No. 57, Defendant’s Motion to Stay Response Deadlines.
4 ECF No. 59, Order Temporarily Granting Motion for Stay of Response Deadlines.
Case 2:25-cv-00631-DAK Document 67 Filed 12/11/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 7

2
DISCUSSION
Over the course of a twenty day period, Mr. Grant failed to appear for an in-person
deposition ordered by the court5 and submitted twenty-four separate filings:
a. 	Nov. 11, 2025, Motion for Sanctions and to Compel;6
b. 	Nov. 11, 2025, Renewed Motion for Protective Order;7
c. 	Nov. 11, 2025, Notice of Pending Motion;8
d. 	Nov. 12, 2025, Rule 37(a)(1) Motion for Sanctions;9
e. 	Nov. 17, 2025, Motion to Compel;10
f. 	Nov. 17, 2025, Rule 37(a)(1) Motion for Sanctions;11
g. 	Nov. 17, 2025, Notice to the Court;12
h. 	Nov. 17, 2025, Notice to the Court;13
i. 	Nov. 18, 2025, Motion to Request Status Conference;14
j. 	Nov. 18, 2025, Motion for Extension of Time;15
5 ECF No. 29, Amended Memorandum Decision and Order.
6 ECF No. 32, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and to Compel.
7 ECF No. 33, Plaintiff’s Renewed Motin for Protective Order and to Appear Remotely for Deposition.
8 ECF No. 34, Plaintiff’s Notice of Pending Motion and Plaintiff’s Intent to Await Court Ruling.
9 ECF No. 35, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Defendant’s Refusal to Confer Regarding Deposition.
10 ECF No. 36, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Insurance Disclosures and for Sanctions.
11 ECF No. 37, Plaintiff’s Motin for Sanctions for Unreasonable Deposition Location.
12 ECF No. 38, Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Additional Discovery Misconduct and Anticipated Sanctions.
13 ECF No. 39, Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Discovery Communication Format.
14 ECF No. 42, Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Status Conference.
15 ECF No. 43, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time and Scheduling Clarification Regarding Future
Motions.
Case 2:25-cv-00631-DAK Document 67 Filed 12/11/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 7

3
k. 	Nov. 18, 2025, Notice to the Court;16
l. 	Nov. 18, 2025, Notice of Procedural Clarification;17
m. 	Nov. 18, 2025, Notice Regarding Late Privilege Log;18
n. 	Nov. 18, 2025, Notice of Potential Legal Assistance Inquiry;19
o. 	Nov. 19, 2025, Supplemental Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37;20
p. 	Nov. 19, 2025, Motion for Sanctions for Pattern of tactical Withdrawal and
Reactive Supplementation;21
q. 	Nov. 19, 2025, Notice of Related Case;22
r. 	Nov. 19, 2025, Motion for Clarification Regarding Obtaining Counsel;23
s. 	Nov. 19, 2025, Notice to the Court Regarding Plaintiff’s Attempts at
Representation;24
t. 	Nov. 20, 2025, Notice and Request for Clarification Regarding ADR and Rule 16
16 ECF No. 44, Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Defendant’s Misstatement of Authority.
17 ECF No 45, Plaintiff’s Notice of Procedural Clarification Regarding Good Faith Efforts Prior to
Sanctions.
18 ECF No. 46, Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Late Privilege Log Transmission.
19 ECF No. 47, Plaintiff’s Notice of Potential Legal Assistance Inquiry.
20 ECF No. 48, Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37.
21 ECF No. 49, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Pattern of Tactical Withdrawal and Reactive
Supplementation.
22 ECF No. 50, Plaintiff’s Notice of Related Case.
23 ECF No. 51, Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification Regarding Procedure Upon Obtaining Counsel.
24 ECF No. 52, Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Attempts to Obtain Representation.
Case 2:25-cv-00631-DAK Document 67 Filed 12/11/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 7

4
Conference Scheduling;25
u. 	Nov. 20, 2025, Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Good Faith Settlement
Communication Under Federal Rule of Evidence 408;26 ECF No. 54; and
v. 	Nov. 20, 2025, Motion for Sanctions Under Rules 26(g) and 37(a)(4) for
Defendant’s “Document Dump” Discovery Production and Related Conduct;27
w. 	December 1, 2025, Motion to Stay;28 and
x. 	December 1, 2025, Notice Of Unavailability.29
A review of the docket reveals the court, as well as opposing counsel, have been
inundated with filings from Mr. Grant. While the court appreciates Plaintiff’s passion for his
case, the volume and frequency of submissions are overwhelmingly disproportionate to other
matters before this court, and limited judicial resources require an immediate deceleration of this
meteoric pace.
“ A district court has power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to enjoin litigants who abuse the
court system by harassing their opponents.”30 Further, federal courts also possess “inherent
25 ECF No. 53, Plaintiff’s Notice and Request for Clarification Regarding ADR and Rule 16 Conference
Scheduling.
26 ECF No. 45, Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Good Faith Settlement Communications.
27 ECF No. 55, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Defendant’s “Document Dump” Discovery
Production and Related Misconduct.
28 ECF No. 62, Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Motion to Dismiss, to Partially Lift Stay for Plaintiff’s
Insurance Disclosure Sanctions Motion and to Address Pending and Forthcoming Rule 26(g) Sanctions
Issues.
29 ECF No. 63, Plaintiff’s Notice of Temporary Unavailability.
30 Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
Case 2:25-cv-00631-DAK Document 67 Filed 12/11/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 7

5
power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions
under the appropriate circumstances.”31 And, while Plaintiff is given latitude as a pro se litigant,
he does not enjoy “unbridled license to disregard clearly communicated court orders . . . [and is
not] entitled to a general dispensation for the rules of civil procedure or court-imposed
deadlines.”32 Injunctions restricting further filings are appropriate where “(1) the litigant’s
lengthy and abusive history is set forth; (2) the court provides guidelines as to what the litigant
must do to obtain permission to file an action; and (3) the litigant received notice and an
opportunity to oppose the court’s order before it is instituted.”33
Here, as outlined above, Plaintiff’s deluge of filings warrants the imposition of limited
restrictions with respect to Mr. Grant’s future filings in this action. As a result, the court
recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Pre-Filing Order be granted.34 Moving forward, so
long as Mr. Grant continues to represent himself pro se, the court recommends that the following
specific guidelines be followed with respect to all of Plaintiff’s submissions:
1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to lodge all of Plaintiff’s Motions and other filings on
the docket until such time as the court has an opportunity to conduct a review of each
31 Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n., 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10 th Cir. 2006) (alteration in original) (citation
omitted).
32 Balensiefen v. Princeton National Bancorp, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107057, at *7 (C.D. Ill. July
10, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 U.S. Dist. 106704 (C.D. Ill. July 31, 2012); see
Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10 th Cir. 1994) (“While we of course liberally construe pro
se pleadings, an appellant’s pro se status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the
fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.”).
33 Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F.3d 1175, 1180 (10 th Cir 2010) (citing Tripati, 878 at 353-55) (internal
citation omitted).
34 ECF No. 56.
Case 2:25-cv-00631-DAK Document 67 Filed 12/11/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 7

6
submission. Each of Plaintiff’s filings must include a brief statement indicating why there is a
good faith basis for the submission and indicating it is not duplicative of any previously filed
Motions. If the court determines there is a good faith basis for the Motion, it will ask the Clerk’s
Office to remove the Motion from lodged status and activate the Motion on the docket. Once the
Motion is activated on the docket, the court will request a timely response from Defendant and
allow Plaintiff an opportunity to reply. If, however, the court does not find a good faith basis for
Plaintiff’s filing, considers it vexatious, or determines it is duplicative of any previously filed
Motion, it shall deny the Motion outright.
2. Plaintiff may, however, file a timely response to any pending motions filed by
Defendant.
In the interest of economy and reducing Defendant’s fees, as to those motions already
filed by Plaintiff and currently on the docket, unless requested by the court, Defendant is not
required to file a response and Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Response Deadlines is granted.35
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated, the court RECOMMENDS that:
Consistent with the requirements set forth in the Report, Defendant’s Motion for Pre-
Filing Order and Motion for Stay of Response Deadline be GRANTED.36
Copies of this Report and Recommendation are being sent to all parties, who are hereby
notified of their right to object.37 The parties must file an objection to this Report and
35 ECF No. 57.
36 ECF No. 56; ECF No. 57.
37 See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Case 2:25-cv-00631-DAK Document 67 Filed 12/11/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 7

7
Recommendation within fourteen (14) days after receiving it.38 Failure to object may constitute a
waiver of objections upon subsequent review.
DATED this 11th day of December, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
38 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00631-DAK Document 67 Filed 12/11/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 7
of 7