Hallett v. State Of Ohio et al

Filing 46

ORDER, in accordance with 45 , denying Plaintiff's motions 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 33 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 , and 43 ; and denying Elise Burkey, Esq.'s motion 22 and Gary Rich, Esq.'s motion 34 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 6/9/2016. (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER EDWARD HALLETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:16-cv-238-Oc-32PRL

STATE OF OHIO, et al,
Defendants.

ORDER
Since filing this action less than three months ago, Plaintiff has filed fourteen motions, all
of which remain pending. (Docs. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 26, 28, 30, 33, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43). In these
motions, Plaintiff seeks a wide range of relief including entry of default and early discovery.
Based on my recommendation that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 45), Plaintiff’s motions are due to be DENIED. See e.g.,
Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[O]nce a federal
court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.”).
Likewise, the motions for extension of time to respond to the Amended Complaint filed by
Defendants Elise Burkey, Esq. (Doc. 22) and Gary Rich, Esq. (Doc. 34) are due to be DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on June 9, 2016.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-