The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles S. Miller, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING (1) REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, (2) DEMAND TO COMPEL, AND (3) REQUEST TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES
Before the court are plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. No. 116), motion for reconsideration of order (Docket No. 125), and motion for extension of pretrial deadlines (Doc. No. 128). Before turning to the individual motions, some background is helpful to understand the court's rulings.
Plaintiff commenced this pro se action in state court seeking to bar the defendants from foreclosing on his residence. Defendants removed the action to this court claiming diversity jurisdiction. One of the defendants filed an amended counterclaim for foreclosure.
Plaintiff's 59-page complaint makes a number of arguments for why the defendants should not be permitted to foreclose upon his residence. Some of them appear to be frivolous on their face, such as plaintiff's argument that the parties seeking to foreclose have suffered no damage because of the alleged illegality of the monetary system and worthlessness of Federal Reserve Notes. Plaintiff alleges other matters, however, that are not clearly frivolous, even though they may be eventually proven to lack merit. For instance, he contends that the parties threatening to foreclose on his residence are not the proper parties under state law.*fn1
At the pretrial conference, the court urged plaintiff to seek the assistance of counsel and advised plaintiff that he would be expected to generally comply with the rules of procedure if he proceeded pro se. Also, because discovery was already an issue, the court directed plaintiff to some of the relevant discovery rules that he needed to follow. Further, the court was frank with the plaintiff, advising him not to waste his allotted discovery upon matters that likely would have no chance of success. Finally, the court reinforced the fact that plaintiff was expected to comply with the discovery rules when it denied plaintiff's earlier requests in an order dated March, 2010, in part because of Bray's failure to comply with the rules. In relevant part, the court stated:
The court advised Bray at the scheduling conference that he had to follow the rules for discovery if he wanted to inspect documents and obtain copies. Bray has not demonstrated that he has properly made any requests for documents following the procedures spelled out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.... (Doc. No. 32).
Since the initial pretrial conference, plaintiff has flooded the court with numerous motions for default and summary judgment, motions to strike, motion to declare certain acts ultra vires, motions for a criminal investigation, and the like. Most of the motions have not contained a proper court caption and many of them state that the action is pending "in the common law district court for the united states of america," complete with its own docket number and "evidence file," and refer to plaintiff as the "Libellant" and to the other persons, both parties and non-parties, as "Libellee(s)." Also, at one point, plaintiff stopped accepting mail from the defendants and insisted that both the defendants and the court use an address for him that is styled in a particular matter.
Because of these problems, the court conducted a status conference with the parties that was held on July 8, 2010. Prior to the status conference, the court issued an order extending by forty-five days the deadline for completing discovery for the plaintiff's benefit. (Doc. No. 103).*fn2
During the status conference, the court advised the parties that the defendants would not be required to respond to the document that plaintiff filed at Doc. No. 111 because it did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court followed this up with a written order filed on July 12, 2010. (Doc. No. 115). The court advised Bray that, if he wanted to make motion to compel discovery, it would have to be in a form that generally complied with the rules of procedure.
A. Request for reconsideration (Docket No. 125)
On August 3, 2010, plaintiff filed a document that, for purposes of the discussion which follows, will be considered a request for reconsideration of the court's order dated July 12, 2010, stating that the defendants did not need to respond to plaintiff's filing at Doc. No. 111. Plaintiff argues in this "request" that the court's ruling was wrong and that the court failed to explain why the document filed at Doc. No. 111 was defective. Plaintiff requests that the document be reinstated and that the defendants be required to respond to it.
The document that plaintiff sent to the defendants and forwarded to the clerk, which was filed at Doc. No. 111 was defective for a number of reasons that were explained to the defendant, including the lack of a proper caption and that, to the extent it sought discovery from the ...