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.

Havlik v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

September 17, 2019

NEAL E. HAVLIK REG. #24985-009
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

          KAY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          RULING AND ORDER

          JAMES D. CAIN, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is "Objections to Memorandum Order Denying [47] Motion to strike [28] and Motion for Rehearing Under Rule 15.e." (Rec. #68). Plaintiff Neal E. Havlik seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Order[1] which denied Havlik's Motion to Strike.[2]

         Havlik has filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. He complains that he received inadequate and/or improper medical and dental care at the Federal Corrections Institution at Oakdale, Louisiana ("FCIO").

         On March 22, 2019, Havlik filed a motion to strike the declaration of Michaela Chano and the defendant's response to Havlik's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.[3] In her Memorandum Order, the Magistrate Judge noted that Havlik's motion to strike was received by the court nearly one month after a Report and Recommendation was issued that recommended that Havlik's motion for preliminary injunction be denied.[4] The Magistrate Judge also noted that Havlik filed a second motion for preliminary injunction on the same grounds.[5]Even considering the second motion, the Magistrate Judge concluded that there was no legal basis to grant the relief sought by Havlik.[6]

         In his instant motion, Havlik seeks to strike "ALL filings by the government."[7] Havlik complains that the medical records are incomplete, the Government documents are hearsay, and that Chano's declarations are not true.[8] Havlik further accuses the Government of fraud and perjury because the Government provided supplemental discovery documents. Havlik seems to be arguing that because the Government provided these supplemental documents, its actions are equivalent to intentionally and fraudulently withholding the documents.

         The Government informs the Court that the complete medical records attached to the Government's Opposition to Plaintiffs Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction constitute the complete records that address the allegations set forth in that particular motion.[9] Considering that Havlik fails to show that record is incomplete, the Court finds no basis in law or fact to reverse the Magistrate Judge's Order granting the motion to strike.

         The Court notes that Havlik has filed numerous motions that are repetitive and redundant. A review of the record indicates the following:

• Complaint filed 5/23/2018[10]
• Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 10/15/2018;[11] Denied.[12]
• Motion for Summary Judgment filed 11/21/2018;[13] Denied.[14]
• Motion to Compel filed 12/10/2018;[15] Denied.[16]
• Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 2/26/2019*[17]
• Motion to Strike filed 3/22/2019;[18] Denied.[19]
• Motion for Default Judgment;[20] Denied.[21]
• Motion for Summary Judgment;[22]
• Motion for Default Judgment;[23] Denied.[24]
• Appeal of Magistrate Decision;[25]
• Appeal of Magistrate Decision;[26]
• Motion for Default Judgment;[27]Denied.[28]
• Motion to Find Defendants in Contempt of Court for Withholding Evidence;[29] Denied.[30]
• Motion to find defendants in Contempt for Violating an Act of Congress;[31] Denied.[32]
• Motion to Appoint Counsel;[33] ...

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.