Strahan v. OReilly et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard Strahan,
Plaintiff
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-52-SM
Opinion No. 2022 DNH 124
Sean O’Reilly, et al.,
Defendants,
O R D E R
By order dated September 8, 2022, the court directed
plaintiff, Richard Strahan, to show cause why this case should
not be dismissed with prejudice for his failure to comply with
the court’s Case Management Order dated March 4, 2022 (document
no. 9), its Sanctions Order dated May 26, 2022 (document no.
42), and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	In
response, Strahan has filed a motion for stay of proceedings.
With that pleading he has combined an apparent response to the
court’s show cause order. 	Local Rule of Civil Procedure
7.1 prohibits combining multiple motions for relief and/or
responses in the same pleading, but the court will nevertheless
consider Strahan’s filing given his pro se status.
Strahan has not shown cause why this case should not be
dismissed on the grounds described in the Show Cause Order
(document no. 72). 	Indeed, his response consists of little more
Case 1:22-cv-00052-SM Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 4

2
than a declaration that his conduct has been fully within his
rights, an assertion that “they [i.e., the staff and judges of
this court] started it,” and a claim that he is free to behave
as he pleases despite the multiple warnings given and
notwithstanding the orders directing him to cease on pain of
dismissal. 	See Motion to Stay (document no. 79) at 3.
Having carefully reviewed the record, the court concludes
that Strahan knowingly and intentionally violated the court’s
Case Management Order dated March 4, 2022 (document no. 9) and
its Sanctions Order dated May 26, 2022 (document no. 42).
Additionally, the court finds that Strahan filed both his
“Notice of Intent to Bring Suit” (document no. 43) and his
“Notice of Intent to Add Crazy, Corrupt Shyster Judge as a
Defendant” (document no. 63) in violation of Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	Because such “notices” are
entirely unnecessary, and because Strahan has offered no
legitimate reason for having made those filings, the court is
compelled to conclude that Strahan submitted those papers solely
for an improper purpose - that is, in an effort to coerce,
threaten, intimidate, and/or harass the then-presiding judge.
See, e.g., “Notice of Intent to Bring Suit” (document no. 43)
(“I immediately COMMAND you to cease and desist in your bullying
and threats of judicial violence against me and IMMEDIATELY
Case 1:22-cv-00052-SM Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 4

3
RECUSE yourself from any further supervision over the instant
action. 	If you do not do so by close of business next Tuesday,
I will . . . bring[] a Bivens action against you in your
individual capacity.”).
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition to Enjoin Gag Orders
(document no. 73) and his Petition to Stay Proceedings (document
no. 79) are denied.
For the reasons discussed, as well as those set forth in
greater detail in the court’s Show Cause Order, the case is
dismissed with prejudice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 	See also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c)(1), and (c)(6). 	As the court noted
previously, “numerous lesser restraints and sanctions have
proved decidedly unhelpful in shaping [Strahan’s] behavior.”
Show Cause Order (document no. 72) at 8. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(c)(4).
Because this action has been dismissed, the court need not
subject Strahan’s proposed amended complaint (document no. 78)
to preliminary review under Local Rule 4.3(d)(2). 	Any pending
motions not addressed in this order are denied as moot. 	The
Case 1:22-cv-00052-SM Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 4

4
Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this
order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
October 4, 2022
cc: 	Richard Strahan, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:22-cv-00052-SM Document 80 Filed 10/04/22 Page 4 of 4