Chaker v. Richland

Opinion

* * *

DARREN D. CHAKER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00348-JAD-EJY

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

FELIPA R. RICHLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court are Darren Chaker’s Applications to File Under Seal. ECF Nos. 3 and 5. This case commenced in October 2007 with a Registration of a Foreign Judgment against Mr. Chaker. ECF No. 1. The last activity, before Mr. Chaker’s recent documents were filed, was approximately fourteen years ago in August 2008. There is nothing pending before the Court and no reason the Court can discern that prompted Mr. Chaker’s current filings. The district court enjoys “inherent power over the administration of its business.” Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Indeed, district courts have the inherent power to strike a party’s submissions other than pleadings. See Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F.Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988); see also Calkins v. Shapiro & Anderson, L.L.P., Case No. 05- 0815-PHX-ROS, 2005 WL 3434718, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2005); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991) (recognizing the district court’s inherent power and discretion to sanction litigants or attorneys). Mr. Chaker’s filings are fugitive documents that are properly struck as they have no relationship to any matter before the Court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Applications to File Under Seal (ECF Nos. 3 and 5) are struck from the record. Dated this 2nd day of May, 2022.