Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bell v. Knoll

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 1, 2006

ROBERT STEVEN BELL, PLAINTIFF
v.
LT. GOV. CATHERINE B. KNOLL; JEFFREY A. BEARD, PH.D.; DONALD VAUGHN; JAMES L. GRACE; KEN KYLER; SCOTT WILLIAMSON; AND WILLIAM S. WALTERS, DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the court are Plaintiff's motions -- a motion for leave to file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and a motion for a copy of the docket sheet and all documents in the instant case.

On January 20, 2006, this court denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the denial of a previous motion for reconsideration. In the January 20, 2006 order, Plaintiff was directed to seek permission of the court before filing any further documents in the captioned case. Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, this court has the power to restrict meritless pleadings by litigants when pleadings raise issues identical or similar to those issues that have already been adjudicated. In the Matter of Packer Avenue Assoc., 884 F.2d 745 (3d Cir. 1989).

In the instant case, Plaintiff has raised the same issue in his current Rule 60(b) motion as in his prior motion for reconsideration. His complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and for failure to prove "imminent danger." Plaintiff's prior appeals have been dismissed. However, the wording of the January 20, 2006 order will be amended.

Petitioner's request for a copy of the docket sheet and for copies of all documents in the file will not be granted. On March 1, 2006, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in the instant case. Therefore, the request for documents is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1) The order of January 20, 2006 is amended at page 2, numbered item 2, to read:

Plaintiff is hereby enjoined from filing any further petitions, pleadings or any documents whatsoever, dealing with the issues involved in the captioned matter, without leave of court. In seeking leave of court, Plaintiff must certify that the claims he wishes to present are new claims, never before raised and disposed of on the merits by any federal court. Failure to comply may result in a finding of contempt of court and punished accordingly.

2) The motion for leave to file a Rule 60(b) motion is DENIED.

3) The request for copies of the docket sheet and case filings is DENIED as moot.

20060301

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.