Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Knight v. Johnson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

May 22, 2018

Bobby Knight, Plaintiff,
v.
Jeh Charles Johnson, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DAVID C. NORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court upon Bobby Knight's (“Knight”) motion entitled “Plaintiff's FRCP 60 & FLC/Brief Motion & Notice of.” ECF. No. 203. For the reasons set forth herein, the court denies Knight's motion.

         This case has a long history, beginning back in 2015, that need not be repeated here in totality. Knight initially filed this action solely as a qui tam action. ECF No. 1. Subsequent to a hearing held on October 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker recommended-on January 5, 2016-that Knight's case be dismissed without prejudice, because Knight cannot proceed pro se on a qui tam claim. ECF. No. 27. On January 4, 2016, the day before this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) was issued, Knight filed an Amended Complaint. ECF. No. 26.

         In addition to his qui tam claim, Knight's Amended Complaint appears to contain claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). ECF. No. 26. These additional claims arose out of a “Disciplinary Action” by the “South Carolina Contractor's Board” against Knight. ECF. No. 26 at 3. Knight alleges this “Disciplinary Action” against him was in retaliation for his qui tam action. Id. at 3-4. Knight was given an extension of time to file objections to the R&R dated January 5, 2016, such that his objections were due by April 1, 2016. ECF. Nos. 31, 35. Instead of filing objections, [1] on March 22, 2016, Knight filed a Motion to Stay and Motion to Amend. ECF. No. 38.

         In an Order dated October 27, 2016, Magistrate Judge Baker granted Knight's Motion to Amend; ordered that his Second Amended Complaint be docketed by the Clerk; and unsealed the case. ECF. Nos. 92, 94. In that same filing, Judge Baker recommended granting the United States' Motion to Dismiss “Count VI” of the Second Amended Complaint and sua sponte dismissing Knight's qui tam claim. ECF. No. 92.[2]The clerk docketed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in accordance with Judge Baker's instructions. ECF. No. 94. On November 21, 2016, the court adopted Judge Baker's R&R dated October 27, 2016; accordingly, Knight's qui tam claim was dismissed as of November 21, 2016. ECF. No. 107.

         On December 21, 2016, Defendants Chenega Security, Inc. and John Thorpe filed an Answer. ECF. No. 110. Between January 11, 2017 and January 19, 2017, Defendants Atlantic Electric LLC, Michael Richardson, George Skip Aldrich, Michael Glazier, Jeh Charles Johnson, Robert J. Papp, Jr., South Carolina State Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, Lewis M. Caswell, James E. Lady, Daniel B. Lehman, Kimberly L. Lineberger, Bill Neely, Jamie C. Patterson, Legrande Richardson, Jr., W. Franklin Walker, and Nikki R. Haley filed dispositive motions. ECF. Nos. 125, 129, 134, 135, 136. On or about February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF. No. 149.

         On July 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Baker issued an R&R recommending granting the dispositive motions filed by Defendants Atlantic Electric LLC, Michael Richardson, George Skip Aldrich, Michael Glazier, Jeh Charles Johnson, Robert J. Papp, Jr., South Carolina State Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, Lewis M. Caswell, James E. Lady, Daniel B. Lehman, Kimberly L. Lineberger, Bill Neely, Jamie C. Patterson, Legrande Richardson, Jr., W. Franklin Walker, and Nikki R. Haley. ECF. No. 179. She also recommended denying Knight's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF. No. 179. On August 10, 2017, the court adopted that recommendation, [3] denying the Knight's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting the dispositive motions filed by Defendants Atlantic Electric LLC, Michael Richardson, George Skip Aldrich, Michael Glazier, Jeh Charles Johnson, Robert J. Papp, Jr., South Carolina State Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, Lewis M. Caswell, James E. Lady, Daniel B. Lehman, Kimberly L. Lineberger, Bill Neely, Jamie C. Patterson, Legrande Richardson, Jr., W. Franklin Walker, and Nikki R. Haley. ECF. No. 186.

         On August 15, 2017, Knight filed a Motion to Reconsider the court's Order of August 10, 2017; that motion was denied on September 13, 2017. ECF. Nos. 189, 194. On October 2, 2017, he filed another Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on October 6, 2017. ECF. Nos. 199, 201. On or about October 10, 2017, Knight filed the instant motion entitled “Plaintiff's FRCP 60 & FLC/Brief Motion & Notice of.” ECF. No. 203.

         Knight's motion is, like many of his filings, difficult to understand. He states:

The District Court CAN use the Federal Law Center (FLC) Nonprisoner Case Management to perform the following tasks in the best interest of justice and to GRANT Plaintiff Knight his Right as a Citizen to Redress his Grievances to the federal government by NOT DENYING Access to the Courts.
a. TO: REDACT all previous Court's Orders and to re-litigate the Plaintiff's pleadings as filed as there was more options than those previously Ordered to obtain an attorney; and
b. TO: Appoint Plaintiff Knight a volunteer pro bono attorney as there are material facts and evidence provided the Court as required of a Qui Tam Whistleblower case; and
c. TO: Grant Plaintiff Knight a Court Order directed to and instructing the appointed volunteer pro bono attorney to perform in an unbound representation capacity . . . to include, his/her being able to be awarded all costs and attorney fees; and
d. TO: Clarify that the term “pro se” in Black's dictionary is a Latin term meaning “on one's own behalf” . . . a Court Administration hired Pro Se Lawyer acting like a Ghostwriter who anonymously and even unknown to EACH INDIVIDUAL OF the Court's pro se filers, this Lawyer acts and bundles ALL pro se litigants into one Class--and by doing so in secret without an appearances crosses the ethical and procedural ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.