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.

Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

November 24, 2014

ANDREW G. CLARK, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Et al., Defendants.

ORDER

THOMAS M. COFFIN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff pro se has filed what can only be characterized as a nuisance lawsuit against various defendants. Plaintiff's complaint does not comply with the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (a) and plaintiff has alleged claims against defendants that are immune from liability or have other dispositive defenses. Moreover, the record before the court indicates that most if not all of plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata or the doctrine of issue preclusion.

Several defendants have filed motions to dismiss. (#7), (# 10), (# 43) and (# 66). Plaintiff has filed a number of mostly improper motions, but has not responded in any meaningful way to defendants' dispositive motions.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause in writing within 30 days of the date of this order why defendants' motions to dismiss (#7), (#10), (#43) and (#66) should not be allowed. No extensions of time to comply with this order will be allowed. Plaintiff is advised that failure to show cause as directed herein will result in the dismissal of this proceeding for failure to prosecute.

Defendant Alex Gardner and State of Oregon's Motion to Stay Discovery (#42) is allowed.

All other pending motions (#21), (#23), (26), (#36), (#38) (#41) (#45) (#46), (#48), (#49), (#50), (#51), (#52), (#53), (#55), and (#61) are denied without prejudice to request reconsideration after plaintiff has filed a response as directed herein.

Plaintiff is advised that litigation is not a game in which he can make up his own rules. Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. Ovitsky v. Oregon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12892, *7-8 (D. Or. Feb. 3, 2014), citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacy v. Maricopa County, 693 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiff is further advised that vexatious and abusive tactics will not be tolerated and may subject him to penalties for contempt of court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.