The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
JAYME FLAWS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 19-06140-CV-SJ-GAF
)
AKAL SECURITY, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is Nevada Smith f/k/a Michael Buesgens’s (“Smith”) Motion to
Withdraw and for Leave to File Amicus Brief (“Motion to Withdraw”). (Doc. # 22). Also pending
is Smith’s “Request for Leave to File Equitable Relief.” (Doc. # 23). On May 21, 2020, Smith
submitted a document he entitled “Request Leave to File” on his own behalf. (Doc. # 20). The
Court construed the document as a Motion for Leave to Intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. # 21). Thereafter, the Court ordered the parties to show
cause why that motion should or should not be granted. (Id.). Smith’s Motion to Withdraw and
“Request for Leave to File Equitable Relief” followed. (Docs. ## 22, 23). No other motions are
pending at this time.
A. Motion to Withdraw
In the Motion to Withdraw, Smith states he was not seeking leave to intervene but wants
to file an amicus brief. (Id.). However, he does not state to which issue(s) he wishes to speak.
(Id.). Instead, he cites a case filed in the District of District of Columbia and a case filed in the
Southern District of Florida and asks the Court to (1) “rescind” the Court’s Order to Show Cause;
(2) strike Smith’s prior filings and Defendant Akal Security, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) corporate
disclosure evidence; (3) order the parties to stipulate to dismissal; and (4) “[e]nter U.S. District
Court District of Columbia leave to file denied document on this court docket.” (Id. at pp. 4-6).
Based on Smith’s representations, the Court will strike his prior filing (Doc. # 20) and vacate the
Order to Show Cause. (Doc. # 21).
Regarding the amicus brief, it is within the Court’s board discretion to permit an amicus
curiae to participate in a pending action. COR Clearing, LLC v. Calissio Resources Grp., Inc.,
No. 8:15CV317, 2015 WL 6604010, at *1 (D. Neb. Oct. 29, 2015) (quotation omitted) (collecting
cases); see United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan Contractors Serv., Inc., No. 4:10-CV-2076 CAS, 2012
WL 3065517, at *6 (E.D. Mo. July 27, 2012). “No statute, rule, or controlling case defines a
federal district court’s power to grant or deny leave to file an amicus brief.” Id. (quotation
omitted). “Although district courts often look to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 for
guidance, a district court must keep in mind the differences between the trial and appellate court
forums in determining whether it is appropriate to allow an amicus curiae to participate.” Id. at
*2 (quotation omitted). “Chief among those differences is that a district court resolves fact issues.”
Id. (quotation omitted). “An amicus who argues facts should rarely be welcomed.” Id. (quotation
omitted).
District courts consider the following factors when determining whether to allow an amicus
brief: “(1) whether the information offered through the amicus brief is timely and useful; and (2)
whether the [entity or individual] seeking to file the amicus brief is an advocate for one of the
parties.” Id. (quotation omitted). “District courts throughout the country are split as to the extent
to which district courts are willing to permit the participation of an amicus who acts primarily as
an advocate for one party.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Here, Smith does not identify any information that may be useful to the Court. Indeed, the
parties have not yet filed any motions asking the Court to rule on an issue. Thus, Smith’s request
to file an amicus brief is not ripe and must be denied. Nor will the Court permit Smith a blanket
authorization to submit briefs in this case whenever he feels appropriate. If Smith wants to file an
amicus brief on any issue in this case, he must provide the information after the parties seek the
Court’s ruling on an issue; explain why the information is useful; and state if he is advocating on
behalf of one of the parties, and if so, which party.
It is unclear why Smith requests the Court to strike Defendant’s corporate disclosure. If
Smith is seeking the Court to declare Defendant is not a legal entity or otherwise rule Defendant
is violating some corporate disclosure requirement, the Court notes Plaintiff Jayme Flaws did not
raise these issues in her Petition. As a non-party to this lawsuit, Smith is prohibited from injecting
his own issues into the case. Accordingly, these issues are not before the Court.
Nor will the Court order the parties to stipulate to a dismissal. The parties have not
indicated they have independently resolved the underlying issues of the case. The face of the
Petition does not reveal any reason why the case should be dismissed. No party has sought
dismissal of the case. The Court will not order parties to do something based on an unsupported
request by a non-party in this case or any other case.
Smith’s fourth request is unclear. Is he requesting leave to file some unspecified document
in this case that he attempted to file in another case? Does he want the Court to order the District
Court in the District of Columbia to file some document in a case pending there? Or is he
requesting the Court enter an order that the District of Columbia court entered? Regardless of the
request, the Court will not grant it without having an opportunity to examine the document and an
explanation for its relevancy to this case.
B. Request for Leave to File Equitable Relief
In this filing, Smith is again seeking relief beyond that sought by Plaintiff. (Doc. # 23, p.
7). As discussed above, he is not permitted to do so as a non-party. To the extent Smith believes
this is an amicus brief, it is not. The parties have not yet sought the Court’s ruling on any issue.
Thus, there is no need for an amicus brief, especially on an issue that has not been raised in the
case. For this reason, Doc. # 23 will be struck.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED that:
1. Smith’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
2. The Clerk of the Court STRIKE Doc. # 20 and VACATE Doc. # 21;
3. Smith’s requests for leave to file an amicus brief, to order the parties to file a stipulation of
dismissal, and to “[e]nter U.S. District Court District of Columbia leave to file denied document
on this court docket” are DENIED;
4. The Clerk of Court shall terminate Smith’s “Intervenor” status;
5. Smith’s Request for Leave to File Equitable Relief (Doc. # 23) is STRICKEN;
6. Smith is permanently enjoined from the filing of any motion, document, amicus brief, or
other material in this case without first obtaining leave of Court. Smith shall file a “Motion
Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File” with any motion, document, amicus brief, or other
material and must attach a copy of this Order to such motion, document, amicus brief, or other
material. Any motion or request seeking relief beyond what the parties seek will not be permitted.
Further, any amicus brief filed before a party seeks the Court’s ruling on an issue will not be
permitted;
7. The Clerk of Court shall return to Smith (1) any purported motion, document, amicus brief,
or other material that does not comply with the prior paragraph with a copy of this Order or (2)
any motion, document, amicus brief, or other material that the Court denies leave to file with a
copy of the relevant order denying leave to file; and
8. The Clerk of the Court return Docs. # 20 and 23 and any materials submitted with them
and mail a copy of this Order to Smith at PO Box 294, Morristown, MN 55052.
s/ Gary A. Fenner
GARY A. FENNER, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: June 18, 2020