UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RAYMOND M. KRUSHIN, :

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-04-2151

:

: (Judge McClure) 

GENE FISCHI, ET AL., :

Defendants :

ORDER

September 15, 2005

Background

Plaintiff has numerous motions pending before the court, which will be

resolved as follows: 

1. Motion for summary judgment in regards to plaintiff’s motion for

leave to file an amended complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 125, filed March 2, 2005). No

brief was filed in support of this motion, contrary to LR 7.5. Therefore, as

provided in that rule, the motion shall be deemed to be withdrawn. 

In any event, the motion is not fundamentally one for summary judgment,

but rather one seeking the court to rule upon an outstanding motion for leave to file

an amended complaint. (Rec. Doc. No. 107, filed February 11, 2005). That

motion was denied as moot by order of July 14, 2005. 

Rec. Doc. No. 125 is deemed withdrawn. 

2. Motion for deposition upon written questions re: defendant Joseph

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 11
2

Morris (Rec. Doc. No. 127, filed March 3, 2005). A brief was filed in support of

this motion. No opposing brief has been filed. The motion is therefore deemed

unopposed. LR 7.6. 

There is no need for plaintiff to seek leave of court for taking the testimony

of any person, including a party, by deposition upon written questions. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(a)(1). However, leave of court must be obtained if the person to

be examined is confined in prison or under other circumstances which do not

appear to be applicable here. Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(a)(2). 

Rec. Doc. No. 127 is denied as moot.

3. Motion to impose sanctions upon the defendants and their counsel 

(Rec. Doc. No. 129, filed March 3, 2005). A brief was filed in support of the

motion. No opposing brief has been filed and, therefore, the motion is deemed

unopposed. LR 7.6. However, the court, as a general rule, will not impose

sanctions unless and until there has been a violation of an order granting a motion

to compel. 

Rec. Doc. No. 129 is denied as premature. 

4. Motion for summary judgment re: deposition upon written question(s)

(Rec. Doc. No. 211 [sic.], defendant Gene Fischi (Rec. Doc. No. 136, filed March

9. 2005. A brief was filed in support of the motion. No opposing brief was filed

and, thus, the motion is deemed unopposed. LR 7.6. Again, the motion is not

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 11
one appropriately characterized as one for summary judgment, but rather a request

to rule upon a previous motion, namely, the motion for deposition upon written

questions docketed to rec. doc. no. 111. However, the motion docketed at rec.

doc. no. 111 was granted by order of April 27, 2005. Even though, as previously

indicated, no motion is needed. 

Rec. Doc. No. 136 is denied as moot. 

5. Motion for summary judgment re: defendant James Larsen’s motion

for deposition upon written questions (Rec. Doc. No. 143, filed March 15, 2005). 

A brief was filed in support of the motion. No opposing brief was filed and,

therefore, the motion is deemed unopposed. LR 7.6. Again, the motion is not

one appropriately characterized as one for summary judgment. Plaintiff is seeking

a ruling on his motion for deposition upon written questions of James Larsen, filed

February 22, 2005. His previous motion was docketed at Rec. Doc. No. 120 and

was granted by order of April 27, 2005. 

Rec. Doc. No. 143 is denied as moot. 

6. Motion for an order compelling discovery (Rec. Doc. No. 151, filed

March 29, 2005). A brief was filed in support of the motion. No opposing brief

has been filed and, thus, the motion is deemed unopposed. LR 7.6. 

A hearing will be held on the motion. 

7. Motion for order compelling discovery (Rec. Doc. No. 156, filed

April 6, 2005). A brief was filed in support of the motion. No opposing brief has

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 11
4

been 

3

filed and, thus, the motion is deemed unopposed. LR 7.6. 

A hearing will be held on the motion. 

8. Motion for appointment of counsel (Rec. Doc. No. 164, filed April

22, 2005). No supporting brief was filed and none is required. LR 7.5. 

The court has denied plaintiff’s two prior motions for appointment of

counsel and circumstances have not changed so as to warrant a different result. 

Rec. Doc. No. 164 is denied.

9. Motion to impose sanctions (Rec. Doc. No. 199, filed June 13, 2005). 

A brief was filed in support of the motion. No opposing brief has been filed and,

therefore, the motion is deemed unopposed. LR 7.6. 

As a general rule, the court will not impose sanctions unless there has been a

violation of a court order, such as an order granting a motion to compel. The

motion for sanctions is therefore premature. 

Rec. Doc. No. 199 is denied as premature. 

10. Motion for court appointed experts and expert opinions (Rec. Doc.

No. 200, filed June 13, 2005). A brief was filed in support of the motion. No

opposing brief was filed, and, therefore, the motion is deemed unopposed. LR

7.6. The court does not have funds available to pay experts on behalf of pro se

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 4 of 11
5

plaintiffs in civil rights cases. The motion will therefore be denied. 

Rec. Doc. No. 200 is denied. 

11. Motion for imposition of sanctions upon defendant Grimes and her

counsel, Dougherty, Leventhal & Price (Rec. Doc. No. 203, filed June 28, 2005). 

A brief was filed in support of the motion and a brief was also filed in opposition

to the motion. In fact, the opposing brief (Rec. Doc. No. 242) was an omnibus

brief stated as being in opposition to plaintiff’s briefs filed to Rec. Doc. Nos. 204,

207, 211 and 227, being in opposition to plaintiff’s four motions docketed to Rec.

Doc. Nos. 203, 206, 210 and 226. 

As a general rule, the court will not impose sanctions unless there has been a

violation of a court order, such as an order granting a motion to compel. The

motion for sanctions is therefore premature. 

Rec. Doc. No. 203 is denied as premature. 

12. Motion for imposition of sanctions upon defendants Fischi, Morris,

Larsen and Orkwis, and their attorneys, Dougherty, Leventhal & Price (Rec. Doc.

No. 206, filed June 28, 2005). A brief was filed in support of the motion. 

Defendants filed the omnibus opposing brief referenced above (Rec. Doc. No.

242). 

As a general rule, the court will not impose sanctions unless there has been a

violation of a court order, such as an order granting a motion to compel. The

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 5 of 11
6

motion for sanctions is therefore premature. 

Rec. Doc. No. 206 is denied as premature. 

13. Motion for order compelling discovery (Rec. Doc. No. 209, filed

July 6, 2005). No brief was filed in support of the motion; therefore, the motion is

deemed withdrawn. LR 7.5. 

14. Motion to compel discovery (Rec. Doc. No. 210, filed July 6, 2005). 

A brief was filed in support of the motion. Defendants filed the omnibus brief in

opposition referenced above (Rec. Doc. No. 242). A hearing will be held on the

motion to compel. 

15. Motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 221,

filed July 13, 2005). A brief was filed in support of the motion. No opposing brief

was filed and, therefore, the motion was deemed unopposed. However, a

proposed amended complaint was not filed. Accordingly, the court directed

plaintiff to file a proposed amended complaint within twenty (20) days of the date

of the order. Plaintiff complied and a proposed amended complaint was filed on

July 27, 2005, although the proposed amended complaint was erroneously

docketed as a motion to amend complaint. Defendants will be given one further

opportunity to oppose the motion for leave to file an amended complaint, should

they wish to do so. This motion may have escaped defendants’ attention in view

of the large number of motions that have been filed by plaintiff. 

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 6 of 11
7

16. Motion for an order compelling discovery (Rec. Doc. No. 226, filed

July 20, 2005). A brief was filed in support of the motion. Defendants filed the

omnibus opposing brief referenced above (Rec. Doc. No. 242). A hearing will be

held on the motion. 

17. Motion to amend complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 232, filed July 27, 2005). 

This document is not a motion, as the docket entry indicates, but rather plaintiff’s

proposed amended complaint filed in response to the court’s order of July 14,

2005. The clerk is directed to change the docket entry to “Proposed Amended

Complaint.” 

18. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 238, filed

August 2, 2005). A brief was filed in support of the motion. Again, the motion is

not one appropriately characterized as a motion for summary judgment, but rather

a motion requesting the court to rule upon plaintiff’s motion for imposition of

sanctions docketed at no. 203).

Rec. Doc. No. 238 is denied. 

19. Motion in opposition to the defendants motion for leave to file an

omnibus brief in opposition to plaintiff’s briefs filed as Docket Numbers 204, 207,

211 and 227 (Rec. Doc. No. 246, filed August 17, 2005). A brief was filed in

support of the motion. No opposing brief has been filed. 

The document, although characterized as a “motion,” is in the nature of a

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 7 of 11
8

brief in opposition to the defendants’ motion for leave to file an omnibus brief. 

Nevertheless, on August 16, 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion requesting

leave to file an omnibus opposing brief and accepted the same for filing. This

“motion” is therefore denied. 

20. Motion for a pretrial conference (Rec. Doc. No. 249, filed August 29,

2005). A brief has been filed in support of the motion. No brief in opposition has

as yet been filed. 

The court agrees that a conference is desirable to bring some order to this

litigation. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in regards to plaintiff’s

motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 125,

filed March 2, 2005) is deemed withdrawn. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for deposition upon written questions re: defendant

Joseph Morris (Rec. Doc. No. 127, filed March 3, 2005) is denied as

moot.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to impose sanctions upon the defendants and their

counsel (Rec. Doc. No. 129, filed March 3, 2005) is denied as

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 8 of 11
9

premature. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment re: deposition upon written

questions (Rec. Doc. No. 136, filed March 9, 2005) is denied as

moot. 

5. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment re: defendant James

Larsen’s motion for deposition upon written question (Rec. Doc. No.

143, filed March 15, 2005) is denied as moot.

6. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Rec. Doc. No. 164,

filed April 22, 2005) is denied.

7. Plaintiff’s motion to impose sanctions (rec. Doc. No. 199, filed June

13, 2005) is denied as premature.

8. Plaintiff’s motion for court appointed experts and expert opinions

(Rec. Doc. No. 200, filed June 13, 2005) is denied. 

9. Plaintiff’s motion for imposition of sanctions upon defendant Grimes

and her counsel, Dougherty, Leventhal & Price (Rec. Doc. No. 203,

filed June 28, 2005) is denied as premature. 

10. Plaintiff’s motion for imposition of sanctions upon defendants Fischi,

Morris, Larsen and Orkwis, and their attorneys, Dougherty,

Leventhal & Price (Rec. Doc. No. 206, filed June 28, 2005) is denied

as premature.

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 9 of 11
10

11. Plaintiff’s motion for order compelling discovery (Rec. Doc. No.

209, filed July 6, 2005) is deemed withdrawn. 

12. The clerk is directed to recharacterize the docket entry with regard to

Rec. Doc. No. 232, filed July 27, 2005, as a “Proposed Amended

Complaint”, rather than a “Motion to Amend Complaint.”

13. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 238, filed

August 2, 2005) is denied. 

14. Plaintiff’s motion in opposition to the defendants motion for leave to

file an omnibus brief in opposition to plaintiff’s briefs filed as Docket

Numbers 204, 207, 211 and 227 (Rec. Doc. No. 246, filed August

167, 2005) is denied.

15. Defendants are directed to file within twenty (20) days a brief in

response to plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Rec. Doc. No.

221, filed July 13, 2005), giving consideration to the proposed

amended complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 232, filed July 27, 2005).

16. Plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial conference (Rec. Doc. No. 249, filed

August 29, 2005) is granted. 

17. A hearing will be held on plaintiff’s various outstanding motions to

compel, namely Rec. Doc. No. 151, filed March 29, 2005, Rec. Doc.

No. 156, filed April 6, 2005, Rec. Doc. No. 210, filed July 6, 2005

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 10 of 11
11

and Rec. Doc. No. 226, filed July 20, 2005. 

18. The hearing on the motions to compel and the pretrial conference will

be scheduled after the pleadings are complete. 

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

 United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02151-JFM-JVW Document 255 Filed 09/15/05 Page 11 of 11