Young v. University of Hawaii et al
| Stephen Robert Neale Young |
| American Bar Association Legal Education Section, Mari Matsuda, William Kamehameha Vogeler, Denise Antolini, Breaking Media Inc., Thomson Reuters, Inc., Kathryn Rubino, American Bar Association, Ronette Kawakami, Aviam Soifer, William S. Richardson School of Law, Heather Smith-Lee and University of Hawai'i |
| 1:2020cv00035 |
| January 24, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| ROM TRADER |
| DERRICK K WATSON |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. § 1961 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 EO: On March 13, 2020, the Court received an email communication from pro se Plaintiff Stephen Young containing twenty-five (25) attachments, including a letter to the Court. This is not the first time Young has done this. In the Court's most recent Order, dated February 7, 2020, Dkt. No. 20, Young was informed that email communications to the Court are inappropriate and prohibited by the Local Rules. To reiterate that instruction, Young may not seek relief by way of email. LR 81.1(f). Thus, the Court will not respond to Young's contentions in the email. If he seeks any specific relief, whether procedural or substantive, he must file a Motion in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the District Court for the District of Hawaii. Any further violation of this directive regarding the use of email may subject Young to sanctions. Accordingly, other than issuing this Entering Order, the Court will take no action on, and will not consider, Young's email of March 13, 2020. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON)(tyk)COURTS CERTIFICATE of Service - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of Dkt. No. 23 has been served by First Class Mail to Stephen Robert Neale Young at the address of record on March 13, 2020. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tyk) |
| Filing 15 EO: Before this action was transferred to this Court from the Eastern District of Michigan on January 23, 2020, Plaintiff Stephen Young, proceeding pro se, had filed, inter alia, two ex parte motions: (1) a motion for admission of evidence, (Dkt. No. 2); and (2) a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a permanent injunction sealing the record in this case, (Dkt. No. 3). The Court will address each motion seriatim.Young's motion for the Court to find certain exhibits admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(B) is premature. Defendants have yet to be served in this case. Moreover, the exhibits are not properly before the Court as Young has not filed the documents in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d)(2)-(3) and Local Rules (LR) 10.2 and 81.1(c). Young is not exempt from these rules merely because, "in an attempt to save paper," he has provided a URL to a website where the exhibits purportedly may be found. The motion is, therefore, denied without prejudice.In Young's TRO motion, he asks the Court to restrain or compel essentially four actions. First, the Court will not order the First Circuit Court of Hawaii to seal the case record in Civil Case No. 19-1-0553 BIA merely because the "case is a stain upon [Young]'s legal record." Dkt. No. 3 at 2(a). This Court lacks the authority to do so, see 28 U.S.C. 2283, but even if such an order could issue, the Court declines to intrude on the constitutional independence of the States and their courts. See Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 306 (2011) ("Any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting state courts to proceed."); Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 80507 (9th Cir. 2002). Young may seek the desired relief in the First Circuit Court should he wish to do so. Second, the Court will not enjoin Defendants Aviam Soifer and the William S. Richardson School of Law from teaching "Advanced Legal Studies Constitutional Law and Civil Rights," Dkt. No. 3, at 2(c) because this form of relief is entirely divorced from Young's asserted claims and injuries. As for Young's last two requests in his TRO motion, he asks the Court to: (1) order Defendants Kathryn Rubino and William Kamehameha Vogeler to remove certain articles from the respective websites, Dkt. No. 3, 2(b); and (2) prohibit Defendants from releasing "any information regarding [this] case to the public, potential witnesses, or to any party in a position to retaliate" against Young or potential witnesses, id. at 1(a)(b). These requests, however, do not fall within the "very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO." Reno Air Racing Ass'n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006); Granny Goose Foods v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39 (1974) ("The stringent restrictions imposed by... Rule 65, on the availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute."); cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court sets the following briefing schedule. After Young has served Defendants with a copy of the TRO motion, Summons, and Complaint, Defendants may have fourteen (14) days to file an opposition, if any, to the motion. Thereafter, Young may have seven (7) days to file an optional reply. If Young does not wish to proceed with his TRO motion, given that it may not go forward on an ex parte basis, he should promptly file a notice withdrawing the motion.Lastly, with respect to Young's request to seal the record in this case, Young has not complied with LR 5.2. Young's request is, therefore, denied. Further, because "[a] motion to file under seal must," inter alia, "be filed in the public record of the case," the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Young's motion, Dkt. No. 3, publicly. Pursuant to LR 5.2(c), Young may have no more than four (4) days from entry of this order to inform the Court whether Young intends to: (a) withdraw the documents in this case, or (b) have the materials filed publicly. "If such notification is not receive[d]" within the deadline, the documents in this case "will be returned to [Young]." LR 5.2(c).For the foregoing reasons, Young's motion for admission of evidence, Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. With respect to Young's motion, Dkt. No. 3, the request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), is DENIED to the extent stated herein, and the request to seal the record in this case is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON)(tyk)COURTS CERTIFICATE of Service - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
Filing 14
Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference is set for 09:00AM on 3/23/2020 before MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 1/24/2020. (Attachments: #1 Memo from Clerk Re: Corporate Disclosure Statements) (emt, )COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Stephen Robert Neale Young shall be served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on January 24, 2020.
|
| Filing 13 NOTICE TO PARTIES: The Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii gives notice of its receipt of the electronic case record for 2:19-cv-13559-AJT-DRG; Stephen Robert Neale Young vs. University of Hawaii; et al., transferred from the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit). Please be advised that this case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson and U.S. Magistrate Judge Rom A. Trader. Please reflect Civil Case Number: CV 20-00035 DKW-RT on all further filings in this case. The Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii are available on the court's website at www.hid.uscourts.gov. (emt, )COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Stephen Robert Neale Young shall be served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on January 24, 2020. |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Case Assignment: Please reflect Civil case number CV 20-00035 DKW-RT on all further pleadings. (emt, )COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Stephen Robert Neale Young shall be served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on January 24, 2020. |
| Filing 11 Case transferred in from District of Michigan Eastern; Case Number 2:19-cv-13559. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
|
Filing 10
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to District of Hawaii. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (NAhm) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.]
|
| TEXT-ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re #10 Order Transferring Case Outside the State of Michigan on Stephen Robert Neale Young at 1801 N. Drexel Street, Dearborn, MI 48128. (MLan) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] |
| Filing 9 EXHIBIT filed in Traditional Manner re #7 Response to Order to Show Cause by Stephen Robert Neale Young. (NAhm) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] |
| Filing 8 EXHIBITS re #7 Response to order to show cause by Stephen Robert Neale Young (DPer) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Stephen Robert Neale Young. (DPer) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] |
| Filing 6 Notice Regarding Parties' Responsibility to Notify Court of Address Changes (KCas) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] |
|
Filing 5
ORDER for Stephen Robert Neale Young to Show Cause why this Case Should Not be Transferred to the District of Hawaii. Show Cause Response due by 1/15/2020. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.]
|
| TEXT-ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re #5 Order to Show Cause on Stephen Robert Neale Young at 1801 N. Drexel Street, Dearborn, MI 48128. (MLan) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION to Proceed without prepaying fees or costs by Stephen Robert Neale Young. (SSch) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] Modified on 1/24/2020 (emt, ). |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Regarding Case Sealing) and MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Stephen Robert Neale Young. (SSch) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] Modified on 1/24/2020 to remove 1/23/2020 termination date of motion, text modified (emt, ). |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Admission of Evidence Under Fed.R.Evid.801(d)(2)(B) by Stephen Robert Neale Young. (SSch) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] Modified on 1/24/2020 to remove 1/23/2020 termination date of motion, text modified (emt, ). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Stephen Robert Neale Young against American Bar Association, Denise Antolini, Breaking Media, Inc, Ronette Kawakami, Mari Matsuda, Thomson Reuters, Kathryn Rubino, Heather Smith-Lee, Aviam Soifer, University of Hawaii, William Kamehameha Vogeler, William S. Richardson School of Law (Attachments: #1 Document Continuation) (SSch) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 1/24/2020.] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
