08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

(1) Causing The Kansas Clerk To Again Withhold Mailing An Order
9. The respondent’s March 28 order was available as a pdf file and
delivered via the court’s electronic case filing to the defendants and the Clerk of
the Kansas District Court but was not mailed to the pro se petitioner (as other
orders in this case and the petitioner’s Kansas District Court litigation with the
exception of the 1/24/2008 minute order above) who is not eligible for
electronic filing.
10. Like the 1/24/2008 minute order, the March 28 order directed and
required a response by the petitioner within a limited number of days or the
petitioner would lose a significant property interest.
11. The petitioner made a timely answer after accidentally discovering the
order had been made. See Exb. 7
(2) Complete Absence of Jurisdiction To Strike Rule 60(b) Motion
12. Like the 1/24/2008, the March 28 order was contrary to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The 1/24/2008 order directed the petitioner to answer
a second Rule 12 dismissal motion not permitted under F.R.Civ. P. Rule 12.
The March 28 order struck a motion by the petitioner that was not a pleading
that could be struck under Rule 12(f) as defined by Rule 7 and the controlling
case law of this circuit. See Exb 7.
13. The respondent’s prior dismissal order of federal claims in this action
sanctions the petitioner and the petitioner’s former attorney, neither of whom
6
08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5701