1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Sara E. Siegler,

Plaintiff

 v.

The Ohio State University, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-170

Magistrate Judge Abel

OMNIBUS ORDER

As the relief Plaintiff requests in her motion for corrective docket entry has

already been effected, that motion (Doc. 8) is MOOT.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 13, 2011 order

denying her motion for an exemption from PACER fees (Doc. 35) is DENIED. The

Court does not find that Plaintiff has presented an adequate basis to set aside its

specific determination that “Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing that she

either requires fee-waived access to PACER or that she is being billed a significant

amount of money for her access.” (Doc. 35 at 3.)

Plaintiff’s first motion to make definite and certain (Doc. 45) is DENIED. In

the first place, Plaintiff misapprehends the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), which

is, as it says, to demand a “more definite statement of a pleading”. It is intended for

circumstances where, e.g., a plaintiff files a complaint that is so vague that a

Case: 2:11-cv-00170-MRA Doc #: 65 Filed: 07/29/11 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

defendant “cannot reasonably prepare a response”. It is not intended as, as

Plaintiff employs it here, as a means of consulting the Court on “uncertainties with

regard to the filing of criminal complaints”. Furthermore, the opinion of the

Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office cited by Plaintiff in her motion is correct. A

private citizen has no “judicial or cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard C., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). The

Court will not accept criminal complaints for filing, on Form AO 91 or otherwise,

unless the United States Attorney has authorized the prosecution. It will

furthermore not interfere in the United States Attorney’s discretion to determine

whether prosecution is warranted. See, e.g., Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611

(1st Cir. 1964); Winslow v. Romer, 759 F.Supp. 670 (D. Col. 1991).

The Court will not entertain Plaintiff’s second “motion to make definite and

certain” (Doc. 49) as such, for the reasons stated above. However, Plaintiff states

that the Court’s July 5, 2011 notice of preliminary pretrial conference mandated

that the parties conduct their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference no later than July 11,

2011, and set the preliminary pretrial conference for August 11, 2011. She attaches

to her motion correspondence with defense counsel, who stated, apparently in

response to a set of discovery requests:

I am in receipt of your emails, however, I strongly suggest that you

more closely read Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pursuant to Rule 26(d) “A party may not seek discovery from any

source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f).” I

will respond with OSU’s Rule 26(f) report within a reasonable amount

of time. Additionally, as you may know, the Court has scheduled a

Preliminary Pretrial Conference and if you read the 26(f) report form

Case: 2:11-cv-00170-MRA Doc #: 65 Filed: 07/29/11 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

you will see that this report is the venue for the parties to set out their

discovery plans. We will not be engaging in any discovery until we

have fully completed the 26(f) conference.

(Doc. 49-1 at 3.) Plaintiff requests, in brief, advice from the Court as to when she

may proceed with discovery. The docket of this case reflects that the parties each

filed separate Rule 26(f) reports on July 20, 2011. (Docs. 54, 55.) Defendants assert

that the Conference of the Parties took place on July 18, 2011; Plaintiff asserts that

she conferred with Defendants’ counsel on various dates between July 7 and July

19, 2011. In any case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), and unless as otherwise

ordered by the Court, as the Rule 26(f) conference has already occurred, any party

may engage in discovery. The motion (Doc. 49) is otherwise MOOT.

Plaintiff’s motion for the entry of default against Defendant Larry L.

Lewellen (Doc. 50) is DENIED. Although, as Plaintiff states, Defendant Lewellen

has not moved or pled in response to her complaint, the Court’s initial screening

report and recommendation of May 23, 2011 stated that he was “not required to

answer the complaint unless later ordered to do so by the Court.” (Doc. 10 at 21.)

Finally, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 11, 2011

order denying her motion to strike (Doc. 56) is DENIED. That order denied

Plaintiff’s request to strike a Form AO 85 (granting consent to reference of a civil

action to a United States Magistrate Judge) recently filed by Defendants, on

grounds that it had not been accompanied by a certificate of service. The Court

found that any failure to do so was de minimis. Plantiff has not set forth any basis

for the Court to reconsider its decision, or offered any explanation of any prejudice

Case: 2:11-cv-00170-MRA Doc #: 65 Filed: 07/29/11 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

she has suffered from Defendants’ alleged failure. The Court will accordingly not

reconsider this matter.

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00170-MRA Doc #: 65 Filed: 07/29/11 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>