Opinion
Case No. 1:05-cv-111.
September 28, 2005
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On March 9, 2005, the Court sua sponte vacated the Notice of Registration of Foreign Judgment filed by plaintiff, dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction, and entered judgment for defendant. (Docs. 7, 8). Plaintiff filed several post-judgment motions, documents, and letters in this matter purportedly challenging the validity of the Court's March 9, 2005 Order and reasserting his right to register a foreign judgment. (Docs. 9, 10, 11, 12). By Orders dated June 9, 2005, plaintiff's motions were denied. (Docs. 15, 16, 17).
On August 25, 2005, plaintiff filed a document in excess of one hundred pages entitled "Appointed fiduciary response for settlement and closure in case CR-1-98-046." (Doc. 21). The Court is unable to discern plaintiff's purpose in filing this document. In any event, for the reasons stated in the Court's Order of March 9, 2005, the Court simply does not have jurisdiction to entertain any of the various post-judgment motions or documents plaintiff continues to file in this case. By continuing to file such documents, plaintiff needlessly expends the Court's limited resources and deprives other litigants with meritorious claims of speedy resolution of their cases.
Given plaintiff's penchant for filing repetitive, meritless post-judgment motions and documents in this case and in an effort to bring this matter to a close, the Court invokes its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and ORDERS that the Clerk of Court not accept for filing any further documents by plaintiff in this action except for a Notice of Appeal. If plaintiff wishes to obtain review of this Court's Orders he must pursue an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and not file any further post-judgment motions or documents with this Court. Accordingly, with the exception of a Notice of Appeal, no further post-judgment motions or documents will be entertained by the Court in this case and the Clerk is DIRECTED to return without filing any such motions or documents presented by plaintiff. See Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145 (6th Cir. 1987); Polyak v. Boston, No. 92-6527, 1993 WL 312000, at **1 (6th Cir. 1993) (unpublished), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1053 (1994); Thomas v. Hageman, Case No. 4:03-cv-1049 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 31, 2003) (Doc. 19). See also Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d 399, 408 (1st Cir. 1984); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir. 1984); In re Green, 598 F.2d 1126, 1127 (8th Cir. 1979).
IT IS SO ORDERED.