Thrasher v. Ft. Worth Tx. Police Department et al, No. 4:2020cv00350 - Document 43 (E.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. As Plaintiff has failed to state adequate grounds for the Motions, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Removal (Dkt. 7 ) and Emergency Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 8 ) are hereby DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 9/3/2020. (daj, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Thrasher v. Ft. Worth Tx. Police Department et al Doc. 43 Case 4:20-cv-00350-SDJ-KPJ Document 43 Filed 09/03/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 128 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION BRANDON K. THRASHER, Plaintiff, v. FORT WORTH POLICE DEPARTMENT, NORTHLAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and DENTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND DEPARTMENT, § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No.: 4:20-cv-00350 Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiff Brandon K. Thrasher’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Emergency Hearing and Relief from Government and for “Government to Remove All Their Illegal Spy Equipment and to Immediately Stop Their Illegal Surveillance” (the “Emergency Motion for Removal”) (Dkt. 7); and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Hearing and Relief from Government (“Emergency Motion for Hearing”) (Dkt. 8). Plaintiff filed suit on April 22, 2020, but failed to prepare service of process on the named Defendants. See Dkt. 1. On May 5, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to prepare service of process so that the named Defendants could be served. See Dkt. 5. Prior to Plaintiff providing the Clerk of Court with process in order to have Defendants served in this matter, Plaintiff filed the Emergency Motion for Removal and the Emergency Motion for Hearing (together, the “Motions”). See Dkts. 7, 8. Thus, on June 5, 2020, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summons to Defendants Fort Worth Police Department, Northlake Police Department, and Denton County Sheriff’s Office and Police Department (collectively, “Defendants”) despite Plaintiff’s failure to prepare process. See Dkts. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:20-cv-00350-SDJ-KPJ Document 43 Filed 09/03/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 129 10, 11, 12. Additionally, the Court issued an order (Dkt. 13) directing Defendants to file an expedited response to the Motions within seven (7) days of service thereof. See Dkt. 13. On July 1, and July 2, 2020, the Court received acknowledgement of receipt of the Court’s Order (Dkt. 13) from Defendants. See Dkts. 16, 17. Defendants each timely filed a response to the Motions. See Dkts. 18, 20, 21, 22. In the Motions, Plaintiff requests the “Government to remove all their illegal spy equipment and to immediately stop their illegal surveillance abuse of me” (Dkt. 7) and an “Emergency hearing and relief from government” (Dkt. 8). Plaintiff provides no allegations or legal arguments in support of his requests. See Dkts. 7, 8. Defendants respond that Plaintiff has failed to make a request upon which relief may be granted. See Dkts. 18, 20, 21, 22. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b), a motion must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order” and “state the relief sought.” FED. R. CIV. P. 7(b)(1). Plaintiff’s Motions fail to comply with Rule 7(b), as Plaintiff provides no basis to support either of the Motions. While pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction, the Motions fail to give Defendants or the Court adequate notice of what exact relief Plaintiff is requesting from the Court and the grounds for such request. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). Further, Plaintiff’s pro se status “does not excuse [him] from complying with federal rules, rules of civil procedure, or local rules of court.” Perkins v. U.S., 314 F.Supp.2d 664, 670 (E.D. Tex. 2004). As Plaintiff has failed to state adequate grounds for the Motions, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Removal (Dkt. 7) and Emergency Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 8) are hereby DENIED. 2 Case 4:20-cv-00350-SDJ-KPJ Document 43 Filed 09/03/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 130 So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2020. ____________________________________ KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
