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.

Harris v. Nina Hill

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division

June 29, 2017

JIM HARRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
NINA HILL, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on numerous motions filed by plaintiff. Each is discussed in turn below.

         I. Motion to File Under Seal (#39)

         Plaintiff seeks to seal certain documents in accordance with E.D. Mo. Local Rule 83-13.05, which states “Upon a showing of good cause the Court may order that documents filed in a civil case be received and maintained by the Clerk under seal.” Plaintiff seeks to have sealed two affidavits, a motion for a preliminary injunction, and a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff offers no reason why these documents should be sealed. Because “good cause” has not been shown, the motion will be denied.

         Plaintiff also seeks “stamped filed copies with doc[ument] numbers on each of the documents filed to retain for his records, in order to submit these documents to the defendants in this case.” The defendants have already been served with all documents filed in this case. The Clerk shall send to plaintiff a current copy of the docket sheet so that he is made aware of document numbers assigned to his filings.

         II. Motion to Reconsider (#40)

         Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's order (#36) denying his motions for preliminary injunction, and the parties subsequently filed hundreds of pages of exhibits and multiple briefs regarding this motion. Plaintiff states that the defendants falsified documents because the pagination is different in two sets of records. However, the documents about which plaintiff complains are electronic medical records, and their pagination will differ depending on the date range requested. There is no substantive difference between the records.

         Plaintiff suggests in his “Objection” (#50) that defendant's Exhibit B to defendant's response memorandum has been falsified because it different from “plaintiff's exhibits, ” but he does not explain further. Plaintiff's exhibits in support of his Preliminary Injunction Motion (#23) makes an unclear reference to “Bottom Bunk, ” stating

         Current Duty Status: 2

         CARDIAC HISTORY-LOWER BUNK

         Lay-In Restrictions:

NO MARCHING
NO PROLONGED STANDING
NO REPETITIVE BENDING, STOOPING, ...

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.