Bartlett v. Unemployment Insurance Commission

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 14, 2017
• Docket: SAGap-16-05
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT SAGADAHOC, 55. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. AP-2016-05

CHRIS BARTLETT, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) V. ) ORDER ON PENDING MOTION ) ) UNEMPLOYMENT ) INSURANCE COMMISSION, ) Defendant. )

The Petitioner moves the court to reconsider the Dismissal Order issued on January 3, 2017. This court dismissed this matter because the Petitioner failed to file a brief in accordance with the Briefing Schedule issued by this coud. In support of his motion, the Petitioner offers no explanation for his failure to file a brief.

This court may set aside a dismissal for failing to comply with filing deadlines if the court finds that the lack of compliance was due to excusable neglect. It is impossible for this court to find excusable neglect when, as is the case here, the Petitioner offers no explanation for his lack of compliance with filing deadlines. The Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider is therefore DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order by reference into the docket for this case, pursuant to Rule 79(a), Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. ''\ Dated: February 14, 2017 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT SAGADAHOC, SS. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. AP-2016-05

CHRIS BARTLETT, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ORDER ON PENDING MOTION ) ) UNEMPLOYMENT ) INSURANCE COMMISSION, ) Defendant. )

The Petitioner moves the court a second time to reconsider the Dismissal Order issued on January 3, 2017. This court dismissed this ·matter because the Petitioner failed to file a brief in accordance with the Briefin g Schedule issued by this court. Th Petitioner's initial motion was denied because the P etitioner offered no explan ation for his failure to file a brief.

With his second motion, the Petitioner claims he did not know he was required to file a brief and that he does not know what a brief is. A litigant who elects to represent himself is bom1d by the same 1ules as one represented by counsel; he is not entitled to any preferential treatment. S e State v. Dunn, 480 A.2d 788, 790 (Me. 1984); Oliver v. M artjn, 460 A.2d 594, 595 (Me. 1983). As a resu lt, the Petitioner' s lack of knowledge of court p rocedure does not constitut ex usable n eglect. Therefore, the Petitioner's Second Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order by reference into the docket for this case, pursuant to Rule 79(a), Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: March 21, 2017 ? ~ ~/\,<,: ~ ~ r

USTICE, MAINE SUPERI~R COURT Date Filed 07 /15/16 County Sagadahoc Docket No. AP-16-05

Action: BOC Appeal

Chris Bartlett vs. Unemployment Insurance Commission

Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney Pro Se Nancy Macirowski, AAG 505 Middle Street Office of the Attorney General Bath, Maine 04530 6 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333

Date of Entry

Received 07 /15/16: Petition filed by Chris Bartlett

Received 07 /28/16: Entry of Appearance for the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission filed by Nancy Macirowski, AAG.

Received 08/17 /16: Administrative Record filed by Nancy Macirowski, AAG.

On 08/17/16: Notice and Briefing Schedule issued.

Received 10/31/16: Brief of Respondent Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission filed by N. Macirowski, AAG.

Received 12/19/16: Letter to Ms. Macirowski and Justice Billings filed by Chris Bartlett.

On G1/03/17: Dismissal Order /s/ Billings, J. , This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice due to the petitioners failure to file his brief.