Order Granting Motion to Strike (PI Motions) — Wall v. CDC

Summary

Order, Doc. 55, dated June 22, 2021, in Lucas Wall against Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and other defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. The order states that the Federal Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 48) is granted in part and that Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 33, 36) are stricken. The court states that the two motions are each 25 pages and that filing them disregards its earlier Order and Local Rule 3.01(a). Because Plaintiff is a pro se party, the court declines to sanction further or to revoke CM/ECF filing privileges. Plaintiff may refile in a single motion of no more than 25 pages, and Defendants must respond within thirty days of that filing.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 55 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1574




                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                             ORLANDO DIVISION
LUCAS WALL,
                     Plaintiff,

v.                                                         Case No: 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
& PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES,
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, JOSEPH BIDEN,
GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION
AUTHORITY and CENTRAL
FLORIDA REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

                     Defendants.


                                         ORDER
       This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the

following motions:

       MOTION:       Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Counts 1-12,
                     14-15 of the Complaint (Doc. No. 33)

       FILED:        June 17, 2021

       MOTION:       Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Counts 19-
                     23 (Doc. No. 36)

       FILED:        June 18, 2021

       MOTION:       Federal Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motions for
                     Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 48)

       FILED:        June 21, 2021
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 55 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1575




       THEREON it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 48) is
       GRANTED in part and Plaintiff’s Motions (Docs. 33, 36) are STRICKEN.

       Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint including 23 causes of action against

Defendants related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) requirement that

individuals wear masks due to COVID-19. Doc. 1. On June 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for

leave to exceed the page limit set by the Local Rules for his then-forthcoming motion for a

preliminary injunction. Doc. 9. Plaintiff stated that although his 25-page TRO motion covered

only Counts 1-12 and 14-15 of the Complaint,1 “[f]or this Court’s more in-depth consideration at

the preliminary injunction phase, [he] would like the ability to expand [his] arguments into several

more of the 21 counts charged against the Federal Defendants in the Complaint.” Id. at 2. Notably,

he stated that “a local rule restricts a motion to 25 pages without leave of the Court.” Id. On June

11, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 10.

       Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Counts 1-12

and 14-15 of the Complaint and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Counts 19-24 of

the Complaint (the Motions). Docs. 33, 36. The Motions are each 25 pages in length, which

prompted Defendants to file a Motion to Strike. Doc. 48. Defendants argue that the Motions are

due to be stricken as a sanction for violating the Court’s Orders and the Local Rules, and

Defendants request a briefing schedule if Plaintiff refiles his request for a preliminary injunction.

Id.




1
  Plaintiff electronically filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 10, 2021, seeking
relief on Counts 1-12 and 14-15 of his Complaint. Doc. 8. On June 15, 2021, the Court denied
the request finding that “the Motion fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury
if relief is not granted.” Doc. 28 at 4.



                                                 -2-
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 55 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1576




        “A trial court has the inherent power to impose sanctions for a party’s failure to comply

with court orders or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Harris Corp. v. Fed. Express Corp.,

2010 WL 11474444, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2010) (citing Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 490

(11th Cir. 2006)). When faced with such a violation, “[t]he Court may, among other things, strike

a non-compliant motion or other filing.” Id. (citing Jones v. United Space Alliance, LLC, 170 Fed.

App’x 52, 57 (11th Cir. 2006) (district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a motion that

violated local rules)).

        The Motions are due to be stricken as a sanction for violating the Court’s June 11, 2021

Order and the Local Rules of this Court. Doc. 10. The Court agrees with the Defendants that

Plaintiff explicitly requested and was denied leave to file a 50-page motion for preliminary

injunction and the filing of two separate 25-page motions clearly disregards and is an attempt to

end-run the Court’s Order and the Local Rule 3.01(a). Also, while the length of each of the

Motions arguably does not violate the Local Rules, the combination of the Motions exceeds the

permissive page limit and is, in fact, a violation of the Local Rules. To hold otherwise would be

to permit a 25-page motion on each legal ground a party might raise in support of a request for

relief—something not contemplated or permitted by Local Rule 3.01(a). As reflected in the motion

to exceed the page limit, Plaintiff is aware of the Local Rule on this issue. See Doc. 9. However,

because Plaintiff is a pro se party, the Court will exercise its discretion not to further sanction

Plaintiff or to revoke the CM/ECF filing privileges granted by the Court’s prior Order, in which

Plaintiff was also warned that any violation of the Local Rules would result in revocation of those

filing privileges.

        As such, it is ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 48) is GRANTED in part

to the extent that Plaintiff’s Motions (Docs. 33, 36) are hereby STRICKEN. Plaintiff may refile




                                               -3-
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 55 Filed 06/22/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1577




his request for a preliminary injunction in a single motion of no more than 25 pages that complies

with the Local Rules and the Court’s Orders. If Plaintiff does so, Defendants are directed to file a

response within THIRTY DAYS of the filing of the motion for preliminary injunction. The

remainder of Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 48) is DENIED without prejudice.

       ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 22, 2021.




Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties




                                               -4-


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.55.0.pdf

Size

145,546 bytes

SHA-256

e838169bb672d5b01dacf467d77b8b4257e979e75808856cb6d1e2630925ad96

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.55.0.pdf

Original

archive.org