United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
13 and May 14, 2019, the court received faxed correspondence
from Plaintiff. In Plaintiff's May 13, 2019
correspondence, Plaintiff requests a “joint
phone-conference;” however, it is unclear with whom he
wishes to have a conference and the basis for his request. In
Plaintiff's May 14, 2019 correspondence, Plaintiff
“attaches” communications between the parties
regarding the state court proceedings “that may be
helpful to the Court in considering my request for a
telephone conference” and additionally asks for
“leave to file a motion for a judgment declaring
Louisiana's so-called malpractice Act as unconstitutional
due to lack of ‘court-access' rights spelled out in
the United States Bill of Rights and Louisiana
Constitution.” Plaintiff's May 13 and May 14, 2019
faxed letters are attached hereto.
the May 13 or May 14, 2019 letters are motions. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1), “A request for
a court order must be made by motion.” Plaintiff
previously signed an E-Service & E-Notice Consent
and thereafter filed a Motion for Permission to File
Electronically which was granted on April 5,
2018. In the Court's April 5, 2018 Order,
Plaintiff was instructed that he
is required to comply with all rules outlined in the Middle
District of Louisiana's Administrative Procedures for
Filing Electronic Documents, have access to the required
equipment and software, have a personal electronic mailbox of
sufficient capacity to send and receive electronic notice of
case related transmissions, be able to electronically
transmit documents to the court in .pdf, register as a
subscriber to PACER (Public Access to Electronic Records)
within five (5) days of the date of this Order and comply
United States and the E-Government Act of 2002.
was also notified on December 12, 2018, that he does not need
to keep the court apprised of the status or any events in the
state court proceeding, that this case has been stayed and
administratively closed pending completion of the medical
review panel, and that any argument Plaintiff wants to make
in this suit must be done by motion after the case is
reopened upon completion of the medical review panel
proceedings. Nothing in Plaintiff's recent
submissions indicates that the medical panel review process
has been completed and no joint motion to reopen has been
filed. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to provide an
“update” regarding the state court proceedings,
Plaintiff is again advised that such an update is
the Court has filed Plaintiff's May 13 and May 14, 2019
correspondence into the record as an attachment to this
Notice, Plaintiff is again notified that the Court will not
act on any requests for relief made informally by letters
addressed to chambers.
Plaintiff is hereby NOTIFIED that no
correspondence sent directly to chambers seeking relief will
be considered. Plaintiff is REMINDED of his
obligations pursuant to the Court's April 5, 2018 Order
regarding electronic filing.
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of
this Notice to Plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt
requested at the address listed on the electronic docket of
 The Rule further provides that the
motion must: “(A) be in writing unless made during a
hearing or trial; (B) state with particularity the grounds
for seeking the order; and (C) state the relief
sought.” FRCP 7(1)(A)-(C).
 R. Doc. 5.
 R. Doc. 28.
 R. Doc. 29.