Miller v. Apple, Inc.

Background

The court had ordered John Williams Miller to refrain from making additional filings until the court ruled on any objections to Judge Tarnofsky’s Report and Recommendation concerning Apple’s motion to dismiss. The order allowed Miller to file objections to that recommendation in accordance with the court’s prior orders.

After the April 22, 2025 order, Miller made several additional filings. The court assumed that most had been sent to the Clerk before the April 22 order was entered. But it identified two filings that appeared to acknowledge the order and nevertheless purported to reject it.

Court’s Action

The court cautioned Miller that a court order must be obeyed even if a litigant believes it is wrong. It explained that the proper response to an allegedly incorrect order is an appeal, and that the order remains effective unless a court stays it. The court also stated that self-represented litigants have the same obligation as other litigants to comply with court orders.

The court again ordered Miller to stop making additional filings in the case until it ruled on objections to Judge Tarnofsky’s Report and Recommendation, except for objections filed as permitted by the April 22 and April 16 orders. It warned that violating this or another court order could result in monetary sanctions, contempt sanctions, and/or dismissal of the action with prejudice. The opinion does not state that the court imposed any of those consequences in this order.

Disposition and Effect

Judge John P. Cronan issued a renewed filing restriction and warning. The order did not decide the merits of Miller’s claims against Apple, rule on Apple’s motion to dismiss, impose sanctions, or dismiss the action. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Miller, whom the opinion identifies as representing himself.