Keelan v. United States of America

Filing 85

ORDER denying 84 Petitioner's Motion for Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 12/8/2022. See attached document for full details. (dw00)

Case 1:17-cv-20158-JEM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 17-20158-CIV-MARTINEZ/GOODMAN
[Criminal Case No. 12-CR-20496-MARTINEZ]

THOMAS PATRICK KEELAN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
______________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A HEARING
Petitioner Thomas Patrick Keelan filed a “Motion for a Hearing to Expose Fraud
and Attempted Murder by the Court.” [ECF No. 84 (“Motion”)]. This is in addition to
Keelan’s previously filed “Motion for Hearing on Fraud-on-the-Court/Second 2255” and
the hearing requests made in his substantive “fraud on the court” motions. See [ECF Nos.
55 (“Keelan will need counsel for the hearing, which the court MUST deem essential.”);
71 (“At minimum, a hearing is required.”)]. United States District Judge Jose E. Martinez
referred the case to the Undersigned for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters,
and for a Report and Recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 5].
For the reasons discussed below, the Undersigned denies Keelan’s motion.
The Undersigned issued a Report and Recommendations on Keelan’s Motion to

Case 1:17-cv-20158-JEM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 2 of 3

Set Aside Conviction and Sentence Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) [ECF
No. 63], and Keelan filed objections [ECF No. 65]. The Undersigned also issued an
Omnibus Report and Recommendations on Keelan’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[ECF No. 64], Keelan’s Motion for Permission to File a Second and Successive § 2255
Motion [ECF No. 69], Keelan’s Motion to Vacate for Fraud on the Court [ECF No. 71], and
Keelan’s Motion for a Hearing on Fraud-on-the-Court/Second 2255 [ECF No. 74], which
included three requests for a hearing. [ECF No. 75]. Keelan has not filed objections to the
Omnibus Report and Recommendations.
These motions are all still pending. It is inappropriate for a litigant to file motions
which merely repeat allegations and arguments raised in previous motions. See Fisher v.
Whitlock, 784 F. App'x 711, 714 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by striking a litigant’s fifth motion for reconsideration, stating that it fell
within the district court’s “inherent power to manage its docket”).
Further, there is no need to file additional motions requesting the same relief as
previous motions which are still pending.
Therefore, the Undersigned denies Keelan’s Motion.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on December 8, 2022.

2

Case 1:17-cv-20158-JEM Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 3 of 3

Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Jose E. Martinez
All counsel of record

3