Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Day v. Grey

United States District Court, D. Maine

July 28, 2017

ROY A. DAY, Plaintiff,
v.
LORNA R. GREY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY AND AFFIRMING DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

          JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's orders requiring him to supply the Clerk's Office with the names and addresses of the Defendants for service of the summons and complaint, because the Plaintiff chose a state forum as a “more compatible court” to proceed with this same lawsuit, and because the Plaintiff elected to cast aspersions against the judges of this Court rather than comply with their orders, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss his complaint without prejudice and the Court resolves the remaining pending motions against the Plaintiff.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On June 3, 2016, Roy Day, acting pro se, filed a complaint in this Court against Lorna Grey, Kenneth Grey, and two insurance companies arising out of an automobile accident that allegedly took place on April 29, 2016 in Pasco County, Florida. Compl. (ECF No. 1). Mr. Day alleges that he is a resident of the state of Florida, that Lorna and Kenneth Grey are residents of the state of Maine, that GEICO General Insurance Company is a Washington, D.C. company with a principal place of business in Washington, D.C., and that 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Delaware. Id. ¶¶ 1-5. Mr. Day claims compensatory damages of $500, 000, emotional distress damages of $500, 000, and exemplary damages of $5, 000, 000. Id. ¶¶ 14-16. He claims that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. ¶ 28.

         On July 25, 2016, Mr. Day filed a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis, [1]Appl. to Proceed in District Ct. Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 8), and on November 21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order in which he granted the motion and recommended that the Court allow the case to proceed. Order Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ECF No. 10). On December 9, 2016, this Court affirmed the recommended decision. Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 16).

         Meanwhile, on December 3, 2016, Mr. Day filed a motion to stay. Pl.'s Mot. to Hold Action in Abeyance (ECF No. 12). In the motion, Mr. Day explained that he had approached the Defendants to see if they would be amenable to settlement before he served them with the Complaint and he asked that the matter be held in abeyance while he determined whether settlement could be achieved without service of the Complaint. Id. at 1. Further, Mr. Day asked that the period within which service must be made be extended so that he could first determine whether settlement was going to be forthcoming. Id. at 1-2.

         On December 5, 2016, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion to stay. Order Denying Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 14). The Magistrate Judge explained that the motion was premature because the Defendants had not yet been served and could not respond. Id. The Magistrate Judge further observed that Mr. Day could refile the motion to stay once the parties had been served, if he thought it was appropriate to do so. Id.

         On December 9, 2016, the Court issued an order for service, directing Mr. Day to provide the names and addresses of the Defendants and, upon receiving that information, the Court ordered the Clerk's Office to prepare the necessary summonses, and the Marshal Service to make service. Order for Service (ECF No. 17). On December 23, 2016, the Clerk's Office noted that the deadline for providing this information was January 6, 2017.

         On January 4, 2017, Mr. Day moved for an extension of time to provide the Court with the names and addresses of the Defendants because Mr. Day had experienced a relapse of his medical problems. Pl.'s Mot. To Extend Time to Comply with the Court's Directive Dated December 23, 2016 (ECF No. 18). Mr. Day did not specify how long he would need in order to comply with the Court's order. Id. On January 5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge granted Mr. Day's motion for extension to January 20, 2017. Order (ECF No. 19).

         On January 18, 2017, Mr. Day moved for another extension of time to provide the necessary information to the Court. Pl.'s Second Mot. to Extend Time to Comply with the Court's Directive Dated January 5, 2017 (ECF No. 20). Again based on his asserted medical condition, Mr. Day asked for an additional sixty days to supply the names and addresses of the Defendants. Id. at 1-2. Mr. Day directed the Court to review his social security file on the “federal government database” to corroborate his medical condition. Id. On January 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing Mr. Day until February 21, 2017 to provide the Court with the necessary information and warning Mr. Day that if he failed to provide the Court with this information, his Complaint would be subject to dismissal. Order (ECF No. 21). The Magistrate Judge declined to seek out and review the contents of Mr. Day's social security file. Id. At the same time, the Magistrate Judge informed Mr. Day that if he supplied the names and addresses of the Defendants, the Marshal Service would serve the Defendants and the case could proceed. Id.

         Instead of complying with the Court order, Mr. Day filed yet another motion to stay on February 17, 2017. Pl.'s Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 22). In this motion, Mr. Day revealed that he had filed a state court action against the same Defendants involving the same automobile accident. Id. at 1. He declared the state court action to be the “lead case” and the state court to be a “more compatible court.” Id. at 1-2. He informed the Court that the Defendants are being served in that case. Id. at 2. As for the addresses of Lorna and Kenneth Grey, Mr. Day observed that he had set forth their street addresses in his Complaint, but Mr. Day went on to accuse them of intentionally evading service of process in the state case and said that he was not sure if they were using a “blind drop” address and were scammers. Id. Mr. Day acknowledged that he had not provided the Court with the addresses of the two insurance company defendants. Id. Mr. Day then accused the federal court of having exhibited “EXTREME bias and prejudice” against him by “denying the law, facts, and evidence exist when they pertain to [him]” and by creating a “fraudulent database file” on him. Id. Mr. Day asked that this federal case be stayed pending the resolution of the state case in order to avoid the statute of limitations. Id.

         On March 29, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision in which he recommended that Mr. Day's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Recommended Dismissal (ECF No. 23). The Magistrate Judge noted that Mr. Day had failed to comply with the Court's orders that required him to supply the Court with the names and addresses of the Defendants and Mr. Day had further indicated a preference for proceeding in state court. Id. at 1-4. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Complaint should be dismissed. Id. at 5. The only question was whether the Complaint should be dismissed with or without prejudice and in deference to Mr. Day's pro se status, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the dismissal be without prejudice. Id. at 4. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Mr. Day's motion to stay be denied. Id. at 5.

         On April 4, 2017, Mr. Day filed an objection to the recommended dismissal of his Complaint. Pl.'s Obj. to the Recommended Dismissal Order (ECF No. 24). In the same document as this objection, he moved to vacate the March 29, 2017 order. Pl.'s Mot. to Vacate the March 29, 2017 “Thinly Disguised Final-Default Order” (ECF Nos. 24, 25). In his objection and motion, Mr. Day repeatedly describes the Magistrate Judge's March 29, 2017 recommended decision as “cunning, misleading and deceptive.” Id. at 1-13. Finally, on June 23, 2017, Mr. Day filed an amended complaint. Am. Compl. (ECF No. 26).

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.