Response to Order to Show Compliance — Wall v. CDC (M.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division) · No. 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI · Doc. 143 · 2021-08-28 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
ORLANDO DIVISION 
 
 
LUCAS WALL,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
Case No. 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
v.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
District Judge Paul Byron 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
CENTERS FOR DISEASE   
 
 
 
: 
Magistrate Judge Daniel Irick 
CONTROL & PREVENTION et al.    
: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
Defendants.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW COMPLIANCE 
 
 
COMES NOW plaintiff, pro se, and responds to the Court’s Order to Show Com-
pliance (Doc. 142) issued Aug. 27. The Court mistakenly wrote: “Plaintiff has failed 
to file a Case Management Report within the time required by Local Rule 3.02(b)” 
and directed me “to file a written response within fourteen (14) days from the date 
of this Order why this case should not be dismissed, pursuant to Local Rule 3.10, 
for lack of prosecution due to the non-filing of a Case Management Report…” 
 
All parties conferred earlier this month regarding the need for a Case Manage-
ment Report. On Aug. 19, we filed a Joint Notice of Compliance with Court Order 
(Doc. 30) Regarding Determination of Exemption to Filing Case Management Re-
port. Doc. 131. The Court appears to have overlooked this joint notice, as it did not 
cite the notice in its Order to Show Compliance.   
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 143   Filed 08/28/21   Page 1 of 3 PageID 4773

 
2
 
All parties “hereby certify that, in compliance with this Court’s directions in the 
Order dated June 17, 2021 (Doc. 30), they have consulted Local Rule 3.02 and con-
ferred with each other, and have determined that this action falls under the excep-
tion in Local Rule 3.02(d)(2): an action for review on an administrative record that 
is not under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Accordingly, 
pursuant to Local Rule 3.02(a), no case management conference or case manage-
ment report is required of the parties at this time.” Id. 
 
This case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution because all parties 
complied with the Court’s Order that “The parties are DIRECTED to consult Local 
Rule 3.02 to determine whether this action requires a case management confer-
ence and case management report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions 
listed in Local Rule 3.02(d).” Doc. 30 at 2. Furthermore, there is clearly no lack of 
prosecution of this case as all parties, including myself, have filed documents mul-
tiple times a week throughout the pendency of this case. 
 
If the Court believes the parties erred in determining that this lawsuit is exempt 
from a Case Management Report, it should order us to hold a Case Management 
Conference and then file a report. Dismissal under Rule 3.10 for failure to prose-
cute would be wholly inappropriate and detrimental to justice when the parties 
have complied with Local Rule 3.02 and are far along in briefing several dispositive 
motions. 
 
 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 143   Filed 08/28/21   Page 2 of 3 PageID 4774

 
3
Certification of Consultation 
Although no consultation with the defendants is required for this response, I dis-
cussed this matter via e-mail with them anyway Aug. 27 to ensure all remain in 
agreement with the joint notice filed Aug 19. Doc. 131.  
 
I hereby certify that Stephen Pezzi, counsel for the Federal Defendants; David 
Wood, counsel for the Defendant Central Florida Regional Transportation Author-
ity; and Sally Culley, counsel for Defendant Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, 
all confirm their clients’ position on the need for a Case Management Report is 
unchanged since the parties’ joint notice filed Aug. 19 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August 2021.
Lucas Wall, plaintiff 
435 10th St., NE 
Washington, DC 20002 
Telephone: 202-351-1735 
E-Mail: Lucas.Wall@yahoo.com 
 
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI   Document 143   Filed 08/28/21   Page 3 of 3 PageID 4775

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.143.0.pdf

Size

155,038 bytes

SHA-256

80448d3c3c105e492eebecb8d2f986aab323eb6f4df783dd0515a1407943a90e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.143.0.pdf

Original

archive.org