Moore v. Hamline University
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03723
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Moore v. Hamline University, Judge Leung denied Moore’s requests for legal-project referral and expedited responses from defendants.
Mariama Moore’s motions were denied. The order also addressed the procedural responsibilities of Moore and the status of service on the defendants, but it did not decide the underlying claims against Hamline University or the other defendants.
What happened
In Moore v. Hamline University, pro se plaintiff Mariama Moore asked to be referred to the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project and the Court’s Early Settlement Conference Project. She also asked the court to require the defendants to respond within 14 to 21 days.
The court said those referrals were not appropriate at that time. It also found that no defendant had returned a service waiver or appeared, so it was unclear whether any defendant had notice of the case or whether the addresses Moore provided were correct.
The court denied both motions. Judge Tony N. Leung also reminded Moore that self-represented litigants must follow court rules and that the court could not give her legal advice.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Hamline University · No. 0:23-cv-03723
- Katherine Menendez
- Jan. 11, 2024
Background
Pro se plaintiff Mariama Moore filed motions seeking a referral to the Federal Bar Association Pro Se Project, consideration for the District of Minnesota’s Early Settlement Conference Project, and an order requiring defendants to respond on an expedited basis. The court noted that Moore had filed roughly 20 actions in the District of Minnesota during the preceding approximately eight months and had previously been referred to the Pro Se Project twice in other matters. The court also noted that Moore had been restricted from initiating new litigation in the district without representation by counsel or advance permission from a judicial officer, and that she received permission to file this action.
Service and Requested Response Deadline
Moore asked the court to require defendants to answer within 14 to 21 days. She stated that defendants had been served with paperwork concerning waiver of service but acknowledged that defendants could have 60 days to respond if they waived service. The court explained that the Clerk had sent each defendant a notice of the lawsuit and a request to waive service on January 4, 2024, based on information Moore supplied in Marshal Service Forms. The defendants had until February 5, 2024, to return the waivers. As of the order, no defendant had returned a waiver or appeared. The court therefore stated that it was unclear whether any defendant had notice of the action or whether the addresses Moore provided were correct.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that referral to the Federal Bar Association Pro Se Project or the Early Settlement Conference Project was not appropriate at that time. It also reminded Moore that, despite her self-represented status, she was responsible for following applicable rules, laws, and court orders. The court stated that it could not advise her whether her filings were correct or provide legal advice. It encouraged her to use the District of Minnesota’s public access terminals and electronic filing resources to check the status of her litigation and filings.
Disposition
The court ordered that Moore’s motions, identified as ECF Nos. 8 and 15, were denied. The order also stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect and warned that failure to comply with the order or other consistent orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorneys’ fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Judge
The order was signed by Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.