Sultaana v. Cunliffe, 1:18CV67. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190410764
Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Pro se Plaintiff Hakeem Sultaana has filed a "Renewed Motion for Relief from Judgment" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). (Doc. No. 49.) This motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the Plaintiff is permanently enjoined from filing any further post-judgment motions in this case. The Plaintiff has received notice that the filing of a notice of appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals takes away this Court's jurisdiction to act in t
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Pro se Plaintiff Hakeem Sultaana has filed a "Renewed Motion for Relief from Judgment" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). (Doc. No. 49.) This motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the Plaintiff is permanently enjoined from filing any further post-judgment motions in this case. The Plaintiff has received notice that the filing of a notice of appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals takes away this Court's jurisdiction to act in th..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Pro se Plaintiff Hakeem Sultaana has filed a "Renewed Motion for Relief from Judgment" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). (Doc. No. 49.) This motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction.
Additionally, the Plaintiff is permanently enjoined from filing any further post-judgment motions in this case. The Plaintiff has received notice that the filing of a notice of appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals takes away this Court's jurisdiction to act in the case. Further, the Sixth Circuit has now issued its mandate order affirming the Court's judgment dismissing his action. (Doc. No. 48.) Accordingly, this case is closed, and the Plaintiff's filing of any additional post-judgment motions in this Court seeking relief from judgment constitutes vexatious conduct which this Court is authorized to enjoin. See, e.g., Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145 (6th Cir. 1987); Wrenn v. Vanderbilt University Hosp., Nos. 94-5453, 94-5593, 1995 WL 111480 (6th Cir. Mar. 15, 1995).
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to return, unfiled, any further motions the Plaintiff submits in this case for filing. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
