Willett v. Pompeo

640 F.Supp.3d 1

Jeffrey M. WILLETT, Plaintiff, v. Michael R. POMPEO, Personally and in his official capacity as Secretary,U.S. Department of State, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-1707-(TSC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

Signed October 25, 2022

Jeffrey M. Willett, Pro Se.

John Moustakas, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants Michael R. Pompeo, John Doe 1-10.

Jeremy Scott Brumbelow, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, John Moustakas, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants Jonathan M. Rolbin, Christine I. McLean, Stephen B. Dietz, III, Michelle Thoren Bond, John D. Wilcock, Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr., George Penn, Douglas Roloff, Adrienne Messer, Matthew Deuchler, Nancy Berryhill.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TANYA S. CHUTKAN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Willett has filed an objection, ECF No. 48, to the Motion to Withdraw filed by his attorney Jenifer Wicks of the Blind Justice Legal Services Corporation, ECF No. 41. Because the court granted Wicks' motion prior to receiving Willett's objection, the court will construe the objection as a motion to reconsider. For the reasons set forth below, the court will DENY Willett's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Wicks brought this case on behalf of Willett, who resides in the Netherlands, and who alleges that State Department employees illegally revoked his U.S. passport in retaliation for his complaints about actions the Social Security Administration took with respect to a third party. ECF No. 1, Compl. §§ 1-2, 7, 30-52.

Wicks filed this action on July 20, 2018 but did not effectuate service of process within ninety days as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court therefore entered an order directing her to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 10/24/18 Min. Order. Wicks filed a timely response in which she asserted that she had served the Defendants but was awaiting confirmation of mailing. ECF No. 4. Shortly thereafter, Defendants entered an appearance. ECF No. 6. With Wicks' consent, on December 16, 2018, the court granted Defendants an extension of time to answer, making their answer due February 14, 2019. 12/16/18 Min. Order. Defendants also sought and received (with Wicks' consent) two additional extensions of time. 2/12/19 Min. Order; 3/31/19 Min. Order.

Defendants filed a timely motion to dismiss all official capacity claims. ECF No. 10. After obtaining an extension, Wicks filed a timely opposition, and Defendants obtained an extension of their deadline, then filed a timely reply. 5/2/19 Min. Order; 6/27/19 Min. Order; ECF Nos. 13, 15. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, but allowed Wicks until March 12, 2020 to file a motion to amend the Complaint as to the official capacity claims. 2/28/20 Min. Order. Wicks subsequently sought two extensions of the deadline to file the motion to amend due to her workload, illness, computer problems, and Willett's illness. ECF Nos. 22, 26.

Meanwhile, after several extensions, Defendants moved to dismiss all individual capacity claims. ECF No. 28. On May 31, 2020, Wicks filed an unopposed motion for an extension of deadlines on the grounds that she had suffered a stroke. ECF No. 29. The motion contained incomplete words, as well as words that were improperly strung together without appropriate spacing. See id. The court granted her request for an extension through July 31, 2020. 6/2/20 Min. Order.

Wicks filed another timely motion, seeking an extension through August 15. ECF No. 30. Not only did this motion contain incomplete words, it also contained groupings of letters that were not words, sentences improperly strung together, repetitive paragraph numbering and unusual capitalization. See id. ("[T]he Court issued an order for the filing of an amended complaint and then a schedulke fot briefing of s renewed motion to dismiss . . . . COUNSEL HAS CONSULTED WITH BOTH MRCOUNSEL AND NEITHER OPPOSE THIS REQUEST."). Rather than extend the deadline until a specified date, the court stayed the briefing deadlines pending further order of the court. 7/31/20 Min. Order. The court ordered Wicks to file a status report by August 28, 2020 and, if medically authorized to return to work, to attach a proposed order for moving forward with the case. Id.

Wicks filed a timely motion on August 15, asking the court to stay the case pending a medical release to return to work. ECF No. 32. The motion contained the same obvious errors as did the previous motions. See id. at ECF pp. 1-2. ("DJEFFREY WILLETT, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an, for stay in this matter pending counsel's return to work. In support of this motion the counsel states the following based on information and belief: (1) COUNSEL FOR MRSTHE PLAINTIFF JENIFFER WICKS HAD A STROKE ON APRIL 1, 2020 AND WAS RELEASED HOME ON APRIL 24. SHE RETURNS FORRASSESSMENT IN the coming weeks TO DETERMINE WHEN SHE SILL RETURN TO WORK, WHICH AT THIS TIME IS PROJECTED TO BE fall 2020 . . . . [C]ounsel requess that the court stay this matter pendinf receipt of status reports from counsel and vacate the Aust 15 2020 deadline for the amended complaint."). The proposed order was written in what appeared to be at least 22-point font. See ECF No. 32-1.

The court granted the motion and ordered Wicks to file monthly reports beginning October 1, 2020, and, once released to return to work, to attach a proposed order for moving forward with the case. 8/24/2020 Min. Order. Wicks subsequently filed three identical timely status reports with unusual capitalization, but no apparent errors. ECF Nos. 33-36. None contained proposed orders as mandated by the court, but on November 27, 2020, Wicks filed an Amended Complaint containing 205 paragraphs, not including sub-paragraphs. ECF No. 37. While the Amended Complaint appeared to add allegations (the original Complaint contained 195 paragraphs, not including sub-paragraphs), the track changes feature in the document only showed format changes, not textual changes. Compare ECF No. 37 with ECF No. 1. Several days later, Wicks filed a motion to strike the Amended Complaint, explaining that she had returned to work part-time but had lost edits she saved to the document. ECF No. 38. The motion contained errors such as those contained in the prior motions and the proposed order appeared to be in at least 22-point font. See id. ("Counsel is back to work on a part time basis . . . [C]ounasks that ECF filing 37 be struck.").

The court granted the motion, struck the Amended Complaint, and directed the parties to meet, confer, and file a joint status report and proposed order for moving forward. 12/29/20 Min. Order. Defense counsel filed a timely joint report, ECF No. 39. On January 15, 2021, the court adopted the parties' proposed briefing schedule, which required a proposed amended complaint on the official-capacity claims by March 31, 2021 and any response to the motion to dismiss the individual-capacity claims by April 16, 2021. 1/15/21 Min. Order. The court had previously required that Wicks file a "red-lined" version of the Amended Complaint. See 2/28/20 Min. Order.

The timely Amended Complaint contained 205 paragraphs, ECF No. 40, but while Wicks' ECF docket entry stated that she had filed a "redlined" version as an exhibit, the exhibit did not contain "red-lining" or any other notations showing the changes from the prior version to the amended version of the document. ECF No. 40-1.

The following day, March 31, 2021, without leave of court, Wicks attempted to file another Amended Complaint four times before one was accepted by the Clerk's office—the first three had been improperly docketed. ECF Nos. 43-46. She attached a "red-lined" version. ECF No. 46-1.

That same day, Wicks filed what appear to be two identical motions to withdraw. ECF Nos. 41-42. She explained that an attorney in the Netherlands had retained her to represent Willett, but the "funds provided by Mr. Willet's former attorney" had been depleted and no further funds had been forthcoming. ECF No. 41 ¶ 1. Wicks stated that she had attempted to secure "additional counsel" to assist her given her "limited capacity," and she believed she had located someone, but she had been unable to retain another attorney because Willett had not provided additional funding. Id. ¶ 2. She also indicated that she had been medically cleared to work 24-30 hours per week but was already working at capacity for Blind Justice Legal Services. Id. at 1 n.1. Finally, Wicks certified that she had sent a copy of her motion to the last known email address for Willett and that she had asked him for a mailing address, but he had not provided one. Id. at 2. She further certified that she advised Willett that if he intended to object to the motion he must notify the Clerk of the Court within five days of service of the motion. Id. The motion did not contain any obvious errors.

Although the Local Civil Rule in place at the time of Wicks' motion provided seven days for clients to object to withdrawal motions, LCvR 83.6(c), the court inadvertently granted the motion the following day, April 1, 2021, "in light of Wicks' medical restrictions." ECF No. 47. The court further ordered Willett to provide the court, by May 31, 2021, his address and telephone number as required by the court's local rules. Id. at 1 (citing LCvR 5.1(c)(1)). The court directed the Clerk of the Court to serve Willett at the email address Wicks had provided. Id. at 2.

Willett's "response" is the pleading currently at issue. ECF No. 48, Pls. Response. He first argues that Wicks' motion to withdraw was improper because she forwarded it to him via email in contravention of the court's local rules, which provide for service via "paper form" on parties who do not have CM/ECF...