Clements v. 3M Electronic Monitoring

Filing 99

ORDERED: Plaintiff Louis Matthew Clements' Combined Motion 60(b)(5) or (6) For Relief From Judgment and Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 95) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 5/30/2023. (AEH)

Case 2:16-cv-00776-SPC-NPM Document 99 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1077

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LOUIS MATTHEW CLEMENTS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 2:16-cv-776-SPC-NPM

3M ELECTRONIC MONITORING,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Louis Matthew Clements’ Combined
Motion 60(b)(5) or (6) For Relief from Judgment and Motion for Leave to
Amend (Doc. 95), along with Defendant’s2 opposition (Doc. 98). For the below
reasons, the Court denies the motion.
Almost six years ago, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s product liability
action with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds. (Doc. 32; Doc 33). The
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal but on a different basis—the complaint
did not allege physical harm to his person or property. (Doc. 45 at 4-6). The

Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not
responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
1

During this case, 3M was sold, and the company name was changed to Attenti US, Inc.
Since then, Attenti changed its name to Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring US, Inc. (Doc.
96).
2

Case 2:16-cv-00776-SPC-NPM Document 99 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1078

Eleventh Circuit then noted Plaintiff did not argue on appeal that this Court
erred in denying him leave to amend the complaint to state an intentional
infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claim. (Doc. 45 at 5). Plaintiff has
spent the next five years trying to right that wrong.
Plaintiff has filed more than a half-dozen motions seeking Rule 60(b)
relief and to amend the complaint. The Court denied all his motions, and the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed it—three times. (Doc. 58; Doc. 76; Doc. 93).
But Plaintiff remains undeterred. Yet again, he moves for Rule 60(b)
relief from the Court’s original order dismissing his case with prejudice. (Doc.
95). He continues to challenge the dismissal and the Court not dealing with
his request to add an IIED claim. But Plaintiff’s latest motion fares no better
than his previous ones.
To start, Plaintiff’s motion is frivolous. This Court and the Eleventh
Circuit have repeatedly told him that Rule 60(b) cannot replace his failure to
appeal not getting leave to amend the complaint. See, e.g., Doc. 51; Doc. 58;
Doc. 63; Doc. 72; Doc. 76; Doc. 93). What’s more, the law Plaintiff tries to raise
in his newest motion is inapplicable, is far from new, and still offers him no
path forward.

He does nothing but rehash the same arguments he has

repeated for seven years, all of which this Court and the Eleventh Circuit have
rejected. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s motion.

2

Case 2:16-cv-00776-SPC-NPM Document 99 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1079

Because Defendant has had to waste time and resources defending
multiple rounds of motions and appeals, it asks the Court to declare Plaintiff
a vexatious litigant.

According to Defendant, “Clements has a history of

litigation entailing vexation, harassment, and needless expense resulting in an
unnecessary burden on the courts and [it].” (Doc. 98 at 11). The Court largely
agrees that Plaintiff refuses to take no for an answer and has placed overly
burdened resources with his rounds of motions and appeals over the same
issue. The Court, however, will not yet declare him a vexatious litigant or
impose a pre-filing screening restriction on him. But, the Court warns Plaintiff
it may do so if he files another motion for reconsideration, relief, amendment,
or the like—or file a new action trying to relitigate the same issue presented
here. So this is Plaintiff’s last warning before the Court may declare him a
vexatious litigant.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiff Louis Matthew Clements’ Combined Motion 60(b)(5) or (6) For
Relief From Judgment and Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 95) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 30, 2023.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3