20 August 1998
Source: David Sweigert

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A SHOW CAUSE HEARING
TO DETERMINE WHY DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT

On May 26, 1998 the Plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint [Doc. No. 18]. The Defendants on June 2, 1998 filed their “SECOND MOTION . . for Enlargement of Time to Respond . . “ [Doc. No. 19]. This Court granted the 6/2/1998 Motion via an ORDER issued June 5, 1998 [Doc. No. 20] quoted in relevant part:

“AND FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant shall serve his answer or other responsive pleading on or before August 3, 1998 . . . Andre M. Davis, United States District Judge. “ [Attached as Exhibit One]

Attached as Exhibit Two is the civil docket provided by the clerk with the phrase “Docket as of August 7, 1998 4:37 pm” in the lower left corner. A review of the docket indicates that the Defendant submitted an additional “MOTION . . for Enlargement of Time to Respond. . .” on 7/28/98 [Doc. No. 21].

However, there is no entry that would indicate that the Court has approved of the 7/28/98 [Doc. No. 21] Motion.

Therefore, Plaintiff MOTIONS this Court for a hearing to determine why the Defendant should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s ORDER of 6/5/98 [Doc. No. 20], requiring the Defendant to answer the Plaintiff’s complaints.

Respectfully submitted;

D. G. Sweigert

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the aforementioned PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A SHOW CAUSE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHY DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT was hand carried to the office of the Assistant U.S. Attorney in room 6625 of the US Courthouse, 101 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 on the 10th day of August, 1998.

D. G. Sweigert

EXHIBIT ONE

EXHIBIT TWO