ORDER RE: DKT. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 20, and 21.
The Court has before it eleven motions, ten of which were filed by pro se plaintiffs in this matter, listed above. Although numerous defendant organizations, as well as all of the members of the named defendants, are named as defendants, only one Defendant, the American Dental Association, has appeared in this matter. Defendant has requested an extension of time to file a response to the various motions and the Complaint. Therefore, no responses have been filed to the motions.
Upon review, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record without the need for additional briefing. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument or further responsive briefs, the motions will be decided on the record before this Court without oral argument. Dist. Idaho L. Rule 7.1(d). In addition, the Court will decide the motions without benefit of a response from Defendant under its inherent power to manage its affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. See, e.g., U.S. v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008).
Further, not all parties who have appeared have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to enter final orders in this case. Several orders discussed below may be construed as the entry of a final order. Therefore, the Court will ask the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a United States District Judge to consider the Court's recommended order on the pending motions.
On March 29, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the above named defendants alleging various constitutional violations related to Plaintiffs' practice of denturity. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff Jacklin Allison is the only named plaintiff who signed the complaint, although a signature page was submitted later, on September 6, 2012. (Dkt. 1, 17.) On March 29, 2012, April 13, 2012, and May 4, 2012, "Movant Keith Allison" submitted a request to submit a "friend of the court brief," a "motion for submission of facts," and a "motion to submit statement of case." (Dkt. 2, 3, 6.) On May 1, 2012, and May 3, 2012, Plaintiff Jacklin Allison submitted two motions and affidavits for default judgment. (Dkt. 4, 5.) On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff Jacklin Allison submitted a motion to "submit attachments as additional evidence." (Dkt. 7.) On June 12, 2012, a summons was issued as to the Defendant American Dental Association. (Dkt. 8.) On June 29, 2012, Jacklin Allison caused the summons to be returned executed and filed with the Court. (Dkt. 9.) On July 25, 2012, Plaintiff Jacklin Allison again filed a motion for default judgment. (Dkt. 10.)
On August 27, 2012, the American Dental Association filed a notice of appearance, and on August 30, 2012, filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to the various pleadings on file at that time. (Dkt. 11, 15.)
On August 27, 2012, the Clerk of Court caused to be issued a Notice of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent to both Plaintiff Jacklin Allison and Defendant American Dental Association. (Dkt. 12.) Presumably in response to that notice, Plaintiff Jacklin Allison filed a "Motion to Dismiss/Ignore Defendant's Motion to Change Judges." (Dkt. 16.) On September 17, 2012, Plaintiff Jacklin Allison filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Dkt. 20.) And on September 19, 2012, Plaintiff Jacklin Allison filed a "demand for jury trial on this matter on 28 November 2012." (Dkt. 21.)
To manage the docket and the numerous serial filings, the Court on September 19, 2012, entered an order deeming the motions filed under advisement, and ordering Plaintiffs to cease filing any further motions until the eleven pending motions were ruled upon by the Court. (Dkt. 22.)
1.Motions to Submit Evidence, Docket 2, 3, 6, and 7
Movant Keith Allison submitted a "motion to submit a friend of the court brief," "motion for submission of facts," and "motion to submit statement of case and/or statutory laws." The motion to submit a friend of the court brief appears to be a motion requesting the filing of an amicus brief. The Court has broad discretion to appoint amicus curiae. Knox v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 2011 WL 2837219 *1 (D. Idaho July 9, 2011). However, leave to file an amicus brief should be denied unless a party is not represented competently or at all, a decision in the present case may affect the interest of the amicus in another case in which he has an interest, or the amicus has "unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide." Greater Yellowstone coalition v. Timchak, 2008 WL 4911410 *6 (D. Idaho Nov. 13, 2008) (quoting Community Ass'n for Restoration of Environment (CARE) v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F.Supp.2d 974, 975 (E.D.Wash.1999)).
The Court finds that Keith Allison, who incidentally is named in the caption of the Complaint, does not meet any of the criteria to justify amicus status. He has not presented "unique information or perspective," considering the same information in the motion is presented in the Complaint in which he is named as a plaintiff in the caption. As a named plaintiff, his interests are represented in this lawsuit. And, Mr. Allison has not identified any other case in which he has an interest that the outcome of this matter may affect. Accordingly, the motion (Dkt. 2) should be denied.
The two additional motions filed by Mr. Allison, Docket Nos. 3 and 6, appear to contain factual assertions, claims, and argument in support of or in addition to Plaintiffs' claims set forth in the Complaint. They do not request any particular court order, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. Nor do the motions conform with the requirements of Dist. Idaho L. Rule 7.1. And the motions do not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, which governs motions to amend the complaint prior to trial. Further, the motions do not seek any particular relief other than what is stated already in the Complaint. For all of those reasons, the motions will be denied.
Plaintiff's Motion to Submit Attachments Numbers One and Two as "additional evidence," on the other hand, does seek specific relief from the Court other than what is already described in the Complaint. Docket 7 seeks to have the attachments considered along with the complaint. Accordingly, Docket No. 7 may be granted, and the attachments considered as attachments to the Complaint.
2.Motions for Default Judgment, Docket 4, 5, 10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) permits a party to request the Clerk of Court to enter a party's default if the failure to plead or otherwise defend is shown by affidavit or otherwise. Once the Clerk has entered default, the plaintiff can move the Court for a default judgment if the ...