United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
LARRY D. CHRISTMAS, JR. PLAINTIFF
D.G. FOODS, LLC DEFENDANT
T. WINGATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
THIS COURT are the following post-judgment motions:
plaintiff's Motion to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
[Docket no. 176]; and plaintiff's Motion
for Transcript at Government's Expense [Docket
no. 177]. This court has reviewed the motions of the
plaintiff and, for the reasons following, denies all
post-judgment motions of the plaintiff.
PRO SE PLAINTIFF
herein is Larry D. Christmas Jr., acting pro
se. A pro se litigant
“must comply with statutory obligations and abide by
the rules of this Court.” Legget v. PSS World Med.,
Inc., No. L-07-63, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15937, at *12
(S.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2009) (Citing Castro Romero v.
Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 354 n.2 (5th Cir.
2001); United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653
(5th Cir. 1994)).
United States Supreme Court specifically cautioned pro
se litigants that:
District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or
paralegal to pro se litigants. In McKaskle v.
Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183-184, 79 L.Ed.2d 122, 104
S.Ct. 944 (1984), the Court stated that “[a] defendant
does not have a constitutional right to receive personal
instruction from the trial judge on courtroom
procedure” and that “the Constitution [does not]
require judges to take over chores for a pro se
defendant that would normally be attended to by trained
counsel as a matter of course.” See also Martinez
v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist., 528
U.S. 152, 162, 145 L.Ed.2d 597, 120 S.Ct. 684 (2000)
Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S.Ct. 2441,
“A document filed pro se is ‘to be
liberally construed,' Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and ‘a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,'
ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Cf. Fed.
Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) (‘All pleadings shall be so
construed as to do substantial justice').”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197,
2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007).
the three-and-a-half-year history of this case, plaintiff has
repeatedly failed to attend hearings set by this court and
has engaged in other conduct prohibited by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. For example, in its June 1, 2016 Order to
Show Cause [Docket no. 10], this court ordered that the
plaintiff must show cause why his case should not be
dismissed because he failed to attend a telephonic scheduling
conference. On January 5, 2018, this court dismissed
Plaintiff's case without prejudice because he again
failed to show up for a hearing set for January 3, 2018.
[Docket no. 145]. As this court noted in its Order, plaintiff
had requested a continuance close to the date set for a
hearing. Despite this court not issuing a ruling, either
orally or in writing, either granting or denying his motion,
plaintiff did not appear for the hearing. Defendant's
counsel had traveled from Memphis, Tennessee to Jackson,
Mississippi to attend the hearing. This court also noted in
its Order that plaintiff “has shown a clear pattern of
contumacious conduct and a stubborn resistance to this
court ultimately showed its largess to plaintiff when it
reopened plaintiff's lawsuit. [Docket no. 155]. Plaintiff
appeared at a June 15, 2018 show cause hearing. [Docket no.
161]. At that show cause hearing, this court explained to
plaintiff that he was responsible for filing a motion to
continue and further explained to Plaintiff that “he
must appear unless the Court grants a continuance.”
This court then set a hearing on Defendant's summary
judgment motion for August 3, 2018.
August 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for continuance,
which this court did not address before the hearing. [Docket
no. 159]. Plaintiff again failed to appear for the August 3,
2018 hearing. Defendant's counsel had once again traveled
from Memphis, Tennessee to Jackson, Mississippi to attend the
court again ordered plaintiff to appear on January 18, 2019
to explain to the court why he had once again failed to
appear for the August 3, 2018 hearing. This court also
awarded Defendant's ...