Burgess v. DOJI, INC. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
MONSIEUR SHAWNELLIAS BURGESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOJI, INC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:25-00495
Judge Aleta A. Trauger
Magistrate Judge Luke A. Evans
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On May 29, 2026, the Court issued an order denying plaintiff permission to supplement
certain “notices” that he filed in the docket because “[n]otices are not vehicles to seek relief from
the Court. Nor are they meant to be used as vehicles to flood the docket with information.” (Doc.
No. 220 at 4.) The Court reminded plaintiff to comply with Rule 7 and Local Rule 7.01. The Court
further reminded plaintiff that he is required to comply with Local Rule 7.03 regarding the proper
formatting of future filings.
Since the issuance of the order, plaintiff has filed three purported “notices,” containing
deposition excerpts and other exhibits, that he intended for “record-preservation purposes.” (Doc.
Nos. 227, 229, 233.) “It is improper to file evidence on the docket unless the evidence is filed in
support of a specific motion or request for relief.” Gancarski v. United States Dep’t of Educ., No.
3:25-CV-455, 2025 WL 1397105, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2025) (striking pro se filings that did
not have “any clear purpose or authority” from local rules); see also Parker v. Clingerman, No.
CIV. 08CV212, 2008 WL 686739, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2008) (striking pro se filings that “are
not in proper form, are irrelevant at this point in the proceedings, and are vexatious and
burdensome”).
Case 3:25-cv-00495 Document 236 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Plaintiff also has filed three motions (Doc. Nos. 228, 230, 235) for this Court1 that contain
improperly formatted text in violation of Local Rule 7.03(a). See Gancarski, 2025 WL 1397105,
at *1 (striking pro se filings with “impermissible typeface and improper spacing”). “Although
district courts may liberally construe the federal and local rules for pro se litigants, even pro se
litigants are obligated to follow these rules.” Greer v. Home Realty Co. of Memphis Inc., No. 2:07-
CV-02639, 2010 WL 6512339, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. July 12, 2010) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Conclusion
Pursuant to the District’s local rules and the Court’s inherent authority to manage its
caseload, plaintiff’s motions at Doc. Nos. 228, 230, and 235 are DENIED. Additionally, the Clerk
of the Court is directed to strike Doc. Nos. 227, 229, and 233 from the docket. Plaintiff is cautioned
that future filings that violate the local rules or the Court’s orders may be stricken and may lead to
sanctions.
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________________
LUKE A. EVANS
United States Magistrate Judge
1 	Other filings (Doc. Nos. 225, 226, 232, 234) have the same defects but are addressed to
Judge Trauger.
Case 3:25-cv-00495 Document 236 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>