Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Thompson v. Erdos, 1:16-cv-812. (2017)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20170907g15 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2017
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STEPHANIE K. BOWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, an incarcerated individual who proceeds pro se, tendered a new complaint against multiple defendants on August 4, 2016. 1 After Plaintiff corrected several procedural deficiencies, the undersigned entered an Order that granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis against some of the identified Defendants, while recommending dismissal of many of Plaintiff's claims and defendants. On August 1, 2017,
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an incarcerated individual who proceeds pro se, tendered a new complaint against multiple defendants on August 4, 2016.1 After Plaintiff corrected several procedural deficiencies, the undersigned entered an Order that granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis against some of the identified Defendants, while recommending dismissal of many of Plaintiff's claims and defendants.

On August 1, 2017, the undersigned filed a Report and Recommendation that detailed the history of the above-captioned case, including Plaintiff's extensive and repetitive motion practice, which includes multiple motions for preliminary injunctive relief and/or temporary restraining orders. (Doc. 38). Plaintiff has filed objections to the August 1 R&R, which objections remain pending before the presiding district judge. The undersigned incorporates the background and analysis of her August 1, 2017 R&R, and further incorporates, as if fully restated, an earlier R&R filed on January 18, 2017 (Doc. 19). Plaintiff has been warned in other matters not to re-file previously filed motions that have been ruled upon by the Court. Future repetitive motions will be stricken without further comment.

For the reasons previously set forth in the prior R&Rs, accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's latest motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 39) be DENIED, without awaiting a response from the Defendants, and alternatively, stricken from the record.

FootNotes


1. In the last R&R filed in this case, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff had filed two prior civil rights cases concerning his conditions of confinement: Civil Case 1:14-cv-935, and Case No. 1:15cv-553, as well as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was transferred to the Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:16-cv-409. On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed yet another case in this Court: see Case No. 2:17-cv-461-GCS-EPD.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer