That’s Judge David Gustafson’s suggestion to James F. Carroll, Docket No. 8484-13, filed 3/13/15, a designated hitter that I classify as a home run. I’ve said many times that Judge Gustafson is obliging. With this piece of advice I proclaim him “My Kind of Judge,” hereafter MKOJ.

James F. has been litigating for two years, and is still filing omnibus motions, playing around with discovery, claiming he’s sick without producing a doctor’s note, and getting extensions. Judge Gustafson has been patient, but James F. is getting one last extension to reply to IRS’s motions, and a reminder that hiring counsel to try his case after James F. has done all the discovery will doubtless lead to counsel wanting more discovery, but that won’t extend the trial date. See Rule 133.

Still, James F. gives Judge Gustafson a chance to warm my old, cold heart.

“Moreover, Mr. Carroll initially had counsel in this case; but… we granted that lawyer’s motion to withdraw on the grounds that Mr. Carroll had not responded to multiple telephone calls, emails, and letters sent by certified mail, and had not paid his bill. We learned in a telephone conference… that his alleged non-payment has impeded Mr. Carroll’s obtaining files from that prior counsel. If Mr. Carroll has funds that he would use to hire a new lawyer, we suggest he might first pay his previous lawyer. In any event, we regard the prospect of Mr. Carroll’s obtaining counsel to be problematic and unlikely, and we will not delay the scheduling of this case on the basis of a supposed future appearance of unnamed counsel. If Mr. Carroll does hire counsel, that lawyer should immediately file his appearance in this case.” Order, at pp. 3-4.

No, I’m not James F.’s former counsel. But I feel for him or her. And I’m sure Judge Gustafson does, too.