WASHINGTON
v.
AT&T INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief because it was procedurally deficient and premature.
The pro se plaintiff filed a motion for miscellaneous relief, referencing a writ of replevin and discovery requests. No defendant had yet been served …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 26(D) cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF (Doc. No. 12)
FILED: December 16, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
By the above-styled, untitled motion, it is not entirely clear what relief Plaintiff¹ seeks, but Plaintiff references a “writ of replevin, motion to proceed and a motion to discover to the Middle District Court of Florida for claims against AT&T Inc." Doc. No. 12, at 1. Upon review, the motion (Doc. No. 12) fails to contain a memorandum of law as required by Local Rule 3.01(a) – while Plaintiff lists several rules and statutes, he does not explain how any of them authorize any requested relief. Moreover, insofar as Plaintiff is seeking discovery from Defendant AT&T Inc., no Defendant has yet been served or appeared in this case, and as such no case management conference has yet occurred and discovery has not yet opened; therefore, any attempts to obtain discovery are premature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Accordingly, the motion (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff is advised that although he proceeds pro se in this case, pro se litigants are "subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Failures to comply with applicable Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the imposition of sanctions.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 3, 2025.
Uslis Hepan Price
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Flores-Dominguez v. United States, 493 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1989)