1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY D. HILL, :

: Case No. 4:05-CV-1229

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

EVELYN DERRICK, :

RICHARD SUTTON, : (Judge McClure)

JANE STUGART-OTTERBEIN, :

AND LORI CRESSMAN, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

January 10, 2006

BACKGROUND:

On June 20, 2005, plaintiff Jeffrey D. Hill commenced the instant litigation by

filing a pro se complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The complaint

arises out of plaintiff’s banishment from the Muncy Public Library. On November

3, 2005, we granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, but allowed plaintiff’s

section 1983 claims, liberally construed as alleging violations of the First and

Fourteenth Amendments, to remain against defendants Derrick and Cressman. 

(Rec. Doc. No. 20.)

On November 22, 2005, defendants Derrick and Cressman answered the

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 10
2

complaint. Over the next several weeks plaintiff filed a litany of motions, all of

which lack supporting briefs as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 7(b)(1) and

M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.5. Under the Local Rule Hill’s failure to file a timely brief

deems those motions withdrawn. As Hill is proceeding pro se we will also address

why Hill’s motions have no merit. Finally, we note that Hill is an experienced

litigator in the courts of Pennsylvania and this district and that he must adhere to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s

Local Rules. 

I. Hill’s November 28, 2005 Motion for Summary Judgment

On November 28, 2005, Hill filed a motion for summary judgment without a

brief in support and without a separate statement of material facts. In his motion

Hill asserts that the defendants’ answer serves as a basis for summary judgment

and makes several conclusory allegations. Unfortunately Hill has also chosen to

use his motion to vitriolically attack the defendants and the court. In our November

3, 2005 order we denied an earlier motion for summary judgment filed by Hill. In

that order we reminded the litigants of their obligation to file a separate statement of

material facts under Local Rule 56.1 (Rec. Doc. No. 21, at 3); Hill has not filed a

separate statement with his motion.

 In the closing paragraph of his motion Hill baldly states that “I’m entitled to

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 10
3

summary judgment by law or a 12 member jury trial ASAP.” (Rec. Doc. No. 25, at

12.) As we noted in our November 3, 2005 order “[a]t the summary judgment

stage . . . the moving party must come forward with uncontroverted admissible

evidence that demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Rec. Doc. No.

21, at 2-3.) We deny Hill’s motion for summary judgment because he has failed to

file a brief in support and it is therefore deemed withdrawn. We also note that he

failed to file a separate statement of material facts pursuant to M.D. Pa. Local Rule

56.1. Finally, we note that Hill’s motion fails on the merits because it is supported

only by the repeated assertion that defense counsel is a perjurer because of the

affirmative defenses he raised in his November 22, 2005 answer.

II. Hill’s December 6, 2005 Motion for Default Judgment

On December 6, 2005, Hill filed a motion for default judgment (Rec. Doc.

No. 28) and a “Request for Default Judgment by the Court (Notice of Motion for

Default Judgment)” (Rec. Doc. No. 27). Hill has not filed a brief in support of his

motion. Hill asserts that he is entitled to entry of default because at that time the

defendants had not responded to his discovery requests, see discussion infra, and

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 3 of 10
1Defendants filed an answer to Hill’s complaint on November 22, 2005; the

court interprets Hills’ use of the quotation marks as a characterization of the

contents of their answer.

4

the defendants had failed to file a “responsive” pleading to his complaint.1 (Rec.

Doc. No. 27.)

Hill is not entitled to a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). As

we have already noted, Hill has failed to file a brief in support his motion and it will

therefore be withdrawn. Furthermore, on the merits we note that defendants did file

an answer and at the time Hill had filed his motion for default judgment the

defendants had answered his discovery requests through the mail. (Defs. Mot.

Strike, Rec. Doc. No. 29, Ex. A.) We also agree with defendants that Hill failed to

comply with M.D. Pa. Local Rule 26.3 by failing to confer with opposing counsel

in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issue before resorting to the courts. 

Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in defendants’ brief in support of their

motion to strike, Hill miscalculated when the defendants’ discovery responses were

due under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Rec. Doc. No. 32.)

III. Hill’s December 6, 2005 Motion to Compel Discovery

Contemporaneously with his motion for default judgment Hill filed a motion

to compel discovery. As with his other motions, Hill has failed to file a brief in

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 4 of 10
5

support of his motion to compel. Nevertheless, as indicated above, the motion

which was premature when filed, is now moot because defendants mailed their

responses on December 5, 2005. (Rec. Doc. No. 29, Ex. A.)

IV. Hill’s December 14, 2005 Motion for Reconsideration of Our November

3, 2005 Order Dismissing Defendant Jane Stugart-Otterbein

On December 14, 2005, Hill filed a motion for reconsideration of our

November 3, 2005 order. Hill has not filed a brief in support. In his motion Hill

unfortunately asserts that we have a history of abusing our discretion in cases

involving him and that we are intellectually dishonest. Hill baldly states that it was

clearly erroneous for us to dismiss defendant Stugart-Otterbein as a defendant in

our November 3, 2005 order.

In our November 3, 2005 order we stated:

We will only allow Hill to proceed with a section

1983 claim alleging deprivation of his First Amendment

right to assemble and Fourteenth Amendment right to

procedural due process against defendants Derrick and

Cressman. They are the only parties alleged in the

complaint to have communicated to Hill that he was

banished from the library.

(Rec. Doc. No. 20, at 7.)

As we noted in our November 3, 2005 order, according to the complaint, Evelyn

Derrick, President of the Board of Trustees of the Muncy Public Library, conveyed

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 5 of 10
6

Hill’s banishment from the Muncy Public Library by a two-sentence letter dated

July 21, 2003. Also according to the complaint, on July 21, 2003, librarian Lori

Cressman orally informed Hill of the ban. Cressman was working at the library

when the incident occurred with co-defendant Jane Stugart-Otterbein, another

librarian. As we have only allowed Hill’s section 1983 claim regarding his

banishment from the library to survive there is no basis for Stugart-Otterbein to

remain in the action.

In the instant motion, Hill repeatedly asserts that Stugart-Otterbein failed to

act as a reasonable librarian, was derelict from her duties as a librarian in handling

teenagers on the day of the incident, and was contributorily negligent because she

was also on duty and had more experience than Cressman. Hill only alleges that

Stugart-Otterbein was present when Cressman informed him of his banishment

from the library. This is insufficient for a section 1983 claim to survive against

Stugart-Otterbein. See Alexander v. Gennarini, 144 F. App’x 924, 925 (3d Cir.

2005) (citing Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207-08 (3d Cir. 1988)) (noting

that under section 1983 defendant must have personal involvement in alleged

constitutional violation). Hill’s motion for reconsideration was filed without a

supporting brief and therefore is deemed withdrawn. However, we note that even if

we were to consider the motion on the merits it would be denied.

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 6 of 10
7

V. Hill’s December 16, 2005 Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses

On December 16, 2005, Hill filed a motion to compel certain interrogatory

responses from the defendants and requested sanctions. Hill never filed a brief in

support of this motion and therefore under the local rules it is deemed withdrawn. 

Even if we were to consider the motion on the merits Hill loses. Hill asserts that

defendant Derrick refused to answer interrogatories 3, 4, and 12. Derrick, however, 

answered interrogatories 3 and 4. It appears that Hill doubts the veracity of

Derrick’s responses, but nevertheless those are her responses. As to interrogatory

12, which asks whether Derrick belongs to the Eastern Star Masonic group, we

agree with defendants that the question is irrelevant and is not calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence, and therefore Derrick need not answer it.

VI. Hill’s December 27, 2005 Motion for “Sanctions for Defendants’

Refusal to Answer Plaintiff’s 12-5-05 2nd Set of Interrogatories” 

On December 27, 2005, Hill filed a motion for sanctions against the

defendants for their failure to provide certain answers to interrogatories regarding

the library cards of teenagers involved in the July 21, 2003 incident with Hill

because defendants assert the information is confidential and privileged. The

defendants also assert that the interrogatory seeks irrelevant information that is not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Hill has not

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 7 of 10
8

filed a brief in support and therefore his motion is deemed withdrawn under the

local rules. However, we note that we agree with defendants that the information

Hill seeks is not necessary to address whether his library privileges were taken away

from him in violation of his constitutional rights. Whether the defendants properly

handled the conduct of other patrons is not relevant to whether Hill lost his library

privileges without due process.

VII. Hill’s January 5, 2006 “Motion to Levy Sanctions for Defendants’

Perjured 1-3-06 Admission Responses,” January 6, 2006 “Motion to

Compel Production of Documents or Declare Default Judgment for Defense

Counsel Misconduct,” and January 9, 2006 “Motion to Levy Sanction

against Defendants for Unlawfully Withholding Relevant, Discoverable

Information, Documents, Criminally Obstructing & Oppressing Discovery &

Summary Judgment”

In Hill’s January 5, 2006 motion to levy sanctions, Hill objects to the

defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions. 

Unfortunately Hill uses this filing to repeatedly disparage the defendants’ counsel. 

As we have already noted we agree with defendants that whether or not the

teenagers possessed valid library cards on July 21, 2003 is not relevant to whether

Hill lost his library privileges in an unconstitutional manner.

On January 6, 2006, Hill filed with the court a motion to compel the

production of documents or declare default judgment for defense counsel

misconduct. In that motion Hill continues to seek documents related to the

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 8 of 10
2On January 9, 2006, Hill also filed a motion to join new defendants in this

action. (Rec. Doc. No. 39.) We remind Hill of his obligation to file a brief in

support of this motion.

9

conduct of the teenagers that were involved in the July 21, 2003 incident with Hill. 

As we have already noted, this information is not relevant to whether Hill lost his

library privileges without due process of law. Then on January 9, 2006, after the

passage of a weekend, Hill renewed his arguments as to why he should be entitled

to information regarding the teenagers library card and computer usage agreements

in yet another filing. In this filing he also requests in the alternative that we recuse

ourselves because of alleged bias.2 We decline the offer.

Hill’s conduct is unacceptable and he is hereby warned that if he continues

to use the court to pejoratively attack defendants, defense counsel, or the court we

may impose sanctions pursuant to Local Rules 37.1 and 83.3, which may include

dismissal of his action. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Hill’s November 28, 2005 motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. No.

25), December 6, 2005 motion to compel discovery (Rec. Doc. No. 26), December

6, 2005 request for default judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 27), December 8, 2005 motion

for default judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 28), December 14, 2005 motion for

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 9 of 10
10

reconsideration (Rec. Doc. No. 31), December 16, 2005 motion to compel (Rec.

Doc. No. 33), and December 27, 2005 motion for sanctions (Rec. Doc. No. 35) are

deemed withdrawn for failure to file a brief in support pursuant to M.D. Pa. Local

Rule 7.5. We note that in the background to this order we have also addressed

why Hill would lose the withdrawn motions on the merits.

2. Hill’s January 5, 2006 (Rec. Doc. No. 36), January 6, 2006 (Rec. Doc.

No. 37), and January 9, 2006 (Rec. Doc. No. 38) motions relating to discovery

requests are denied as they seek information that is irrelevant to whether Hill lost his

library privileges in violation of the constitution.

3. Hill is put on notice that further use of pejorative terms to describe

defendants, defense counsel, the court, or employees of the court in his filings shall

subject him to possible sanctions pursuant to Local Rules 37.1 and 83.3, sanctions

which may include dismissal of his action.

4. Defendants’ motion to strike (Rec. Doc. No. 29), is deemed moot in light

of this order.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

 James F. McClure, Jr. 

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 40 Filed 01/10/06 Page 10 of 10