Judge Graham Dismisses Lawsuit Because Plaintiff makes Florida Public Records Request

Highlands County through its attorney, Maria Sorolis, asked Judge Graham to dismiss a lawsuit, because the Plaintiff, Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. made a public records request under Florida Law. Here is what the Defendants asked Judge Graham for and got, verbatim.

6) During the week of February 5, 2001, Plaintiff knowingly violated this Court’s Orders of June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000. Plaintiff appeared at the office of Fred Carino, Human Resource Director of Highlands County and a supervisory employee of a named defendant in this action, and demanded to view his personnel file. This request was made directly to Mr. Carino’s office and not through Defendant Highlands County’s counsel.1 Notwithstanding, his file was produced to him. During this visit, Plaintiff pointed out that certain portions of the contents of his personnel file should be removed. (Exhibit 5). These acts were done with apparent intent to challenge this Court’s authority to issue Orders enjoining Plaintiffs conduct.
(7) On February 13, 2001, Plaintiff appeared at Fred Carino’s office and demanded to view attorney billing records from Defendant Highlands County’s counsel relevant to its defense of his litigation. Mr. Mason left before the records could be produced. Id.
‘In an effort to cooperate with Plaintiff, Defendants’ counsel has allowed the production of a document to take place at Mr. Carino’s office. Notwithstanding, Defendants’ counsel has always required Plaintiff to make his request for the particular production only through them.
(8) On February 14, 2001, Plaintiff returned to Fred Carino’s office and demanded to view attorney billing records from Defendant Highlands County’s counsel relevant to its defense of his litigation. This request was made directly to Mr. Carino’s office and not through Defendant Highlands County’s counsel. Notwithstanding, the records were produced to him. Id.
(9) After reviewing the, records, Mr. Mason penned a note to Mr. Carino stating that he wanted unredacted portions of billing records and if he did not get them he will file a lawsuit by February 16, 2001.2 Id
(10) Mr. Mason returned to Mr. Carino’s office a second time on February 14, 2001 and knowingly violated this Court’s Orders of June 19, 200 and July 25, 2000. He demanded to view Defendant Highlands County’s Insurance Document of Coverage, a docuthent that had previously been produced to him. This request was made directly to Mr. Carino’s office and :not through Defendant Highlands County’s counsel. Notwithstanding, the document was produced to him. Id.
(11) During this visit, Plaintiff became loud, aggressive, disruptive, and questioned the need for Mr. Carino’s presence during his review of the document. Plaintiff suggested to Mr. Carino that his time could be better spent responding to Plaintiffs many interrogatories. Id.
(12) During his confrontation, Mr. Mason made threatening gestures to Mr. Carino with his hands that came within six (6) inches of Mr. Carino’s face. Plaintiff threatened Mr. Carino numerous times that Plaintiff would have him arrested if he arrested if he did not turn over whatever documents Plaintiff demanded. Plaintiff also threatened to go directly to the courthouse and file suit against Highlands County and Mr. Carino individually. Plaintiff promised Mr. Carino that he would continue to return to his office to demand public records and documents. Id.
(13) Subsequent to these events, and up to the time of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff has continued to violate this Court’s Order by personally contacting Mr.Carino’s office for discovery matter in a harassing manner without first going through Defendant’s counsel. (Exhibit 7).
(14) Plaintiff has demonstrated a blatant disregard for this Court’s authority and a resolve indicative of bullying his way through this litigation on his own terms. (Exhibit 6).
(15) Plaintiffs conduct in violation of this Court’s Orders of June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000 require a dismissal with prejudice of all of plaintiff’s claims in the above-referenced matter.

See DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The first motion was not good enough, so Highlands County asked for another motion not to be communicate with.

(10) Since April 3, 2001 - subsequent to the Court’s March 27th Order - Plaintiff has repeatedly personally contacted supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants about matters related to this case. Specifically, Plaintiff sent e-mail communications directly to supervisory employees of the Defendants, which discussed the “no trespass warnings” that were issued against Plaintiff, Plaintiffs tortious interference claim, as well as Allen, Norton & Blue’s “track record” of litigating appeals (including Eleventh Circuit appeals). (Exhibit 1).
(11) Clearly, Plaintiffs “no trespass” and tortious interference claims were an integral part of Plaintiffs present litigation, and involve the same set of facts that Plaintiff continues to rely on in pursuing his present claims. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint alleged several causes of action based on the issuance of the “no trespass” warnings against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff’s “no trespass” claims were ultimately dismissed by the Court (D.E.’s #435; 466), Plaintiff has recently indicated his intent to appeal the Court’s dismissal of all claims in his Fourth Amended Complaint. (Exhibit 2). Consequently, the issuance of the “no trespass” warnings against Plaintiff are still part of this present litigation.
(12) In addition, Plaintiff’s communications regarding Defendants’ counsel’s Eleventh Circuit “track record” clearly have no relevance to his state court claim(s), and pertain only to his federal litigation.
(13) All of Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same set of facts and are all related, and he should simply not be allowed to continuously disregard Orders of this Court and blatantly challenge the Court’s authority.
(14) Plaintiff has continued to violate this Court’s Order by personally contacting these individuals, despite clear warnings by the Court that any future violations will result in the recommendation of dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claim(s). Plaintiff has demonstrated a blatant disregard and disdain for this Court’s authority, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s statement that “ANYBODY, who supports your position. . . is a racist and is part of the problem. I fear no man!!! This includes white men wearing robes” and “I aint afraid of a white men wearing robes of any color.” (Exhibit 1, e-mails dated 4/03/01 at 10:57 a.m. and 4/06/01 at 8:33 a.m. respectively)
(15) Plaintiff’s continuous violation of this Court’s Orders mandate a dismissal of all of plaintiffs claims in the above-referenced matter with prejudice.

WHEREFORE, Defendants’ request that this Court dismiss with prejudice all of Plaintiffs claims in the above-referenced matter.

See DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW


The "Court" or Judge Donald L. Graham granted these patently illegal motions.

See (Doc 766, Report and Recommendtion); (Doc. 791, Order Adopting Report and Recommendtion).