McCaul v. Bartle et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

<!-- PageHeader="Case 2:26-cv-00076-KSL Document 64 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 3" -->

# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION

DAN PATRICK MCCAUL,

Plaintiff,

CV 26-76-BU-KSL

ORDER
VS.

BERT BARTLE, JENNIFER HEBER,
OPPORTUNITY BANK OF AMER-
ICA, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-5,
DOES 1-5

Defendants.

On September 24, 2026, pro se plaintiff Dan Patrick McCaul filed a "Motion
for Scheduling Order and Short Brief in Support." (Doc. 47). That same day, McCaul
filed a document titled "Affidavit of Dan Patrick McCaul Motion for Scheduling
Order and Combined Brief in Support." (Doc. 48). On September 28, 2026, McCaul
filed an "Affidavit of Victim and Witness Jennifer P. Shahood." (Doc. 52). McCaul's
affidavit (Doc. 48) is redundant material, as it merely repeats allegations made in
previous filings. Shahood's affidavit (Doc. 52) is not filed in support of any pending
motion and concerns Defendants' alleged conduct toward Shahood, who is not a
party to this case. District courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets,
which includes the power to strike items from the docket "to address litigation

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="Case 2:26-cv-00076-KSL Document 64 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 3" -->

conduct that does not warrant outright dismissal." Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg.,
Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, this Court put the parties on notice
that filings that are not permitted by the District of Montana Local Rules would be
stricken from the record. (Doc. 40 at 10-11). Because one affidavit is duplicative and
the other is irrelevant to the claims in this case, and because neither is a filing con-
templated by the Local Rules or this Court's prior order, the Court strikes the two
affidavits. (Docs. 48, 52).

On September 24, 2026, McCaul filed a "Notice to the Court Regarding Pro-
cedural History." (Doc. 49). In this "notice," McCaul states that he seeks to "ensure
the Court has a clear and accurate record of the procedural history relevant to" his
motion for a scheduling order, motion to compel discovery, motion for default judg-
ment, "forthcoming Motion for Summary Judgment," and "federal Affidavit submit-
ted in support of all pending and anticipated motions," and "requests that the Court
take judicial notice of the procedural history outlined herein." (Id. at 4-5). The Court
resolved the motion for a scheduling order (Doc. 54), and the remaining motions
have not been filed. The Court construes McCaul's "notice" as a motion to take ju-
dicial notice. District courts have discretion as to whether to take judicial notice. See
Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). To the ex-
tent the procedural history of this case is relevant to any motion now pending or filed
in the future, the Court will consult the docket directly. The Court denies this motion.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="Case 2:26-cv-00076-KSL Document 64 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3" -->

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that because McCaul's "Affidavit of Dan Patrick
McCaul Motion for Scheduling Order and Combined Brief in Support" (Doc. 48)
and "Affidavit of Victim and Witness Jennifer P. Shahood" (Doc. 52) do not comply
with the Local Rules of the District of Montana or this Court's previous order (Doc.
40), the Court STRIKES those documents (Docs. 48, 52) from the record.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that McCaul's "Notice to the Court Regarding
Procedural History" (Doc. 49), which the Court construes as a motion to take judicial
notice, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this
9th
day of October, 2026.

Kathleen Lane
KATHLEEN S. LANE
United States District Judge