Clervrain v. Johns

Filing 44

ORDER denying the following motions: 33 Motion for ["Unreasonable Classification(s) Act"]; 34 Motion for Congressional Power; 35 Motion for ['Opposition(s)'] or ['Criminal Intent(s)']; 36 Motion for Conside ration or Compelling Need(s); 37 Motion for ['Extraodinary [sic] Remedy Act'] ('ERA'); 38 Motion for Mitigating Financial Burden or ('IFP'); 39 Motion for Settlement Agreement(s) Against Secretive Criminals; and 40 Motion for ['Alien Status'] or ['Pauperis Status']. Additionally, Plaintiff's 42 Amended Complaint is Dismissed. The Clerk is directed to refrain from accepting any other filing in this closed case absent a prescreening by the Magistrate Judge and Order that the attempted filing is intelligible and/or makes some semblance of sense. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 4/8/2022. (gmh)

In the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
Waycross Division
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN,

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Plaintiff,
v.
TRACEY JOHNS,
Defendant.

CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-38

ORDER
Before
Manetirony

the

Court

are

Clervrain:

motions

filed

“Motion

by
for

pro

se

Plaintiff

[“Unreasonable

Classification(s) Act”] by Compelling Performance Movements on
Crimes

Mitigating

Act

(‘MOCMA’),”

dkt.

no.

33;

“Motion

for

Congressional Power and Apex Disposition Concerns by Invoking the
Detainee(s) Issues Freedom Treatment Act (‘DIFTA’),” dkt. no. 34;
“Motion for [‘Opposition(s)’] or [‘Criminal Intent(s)’] and/or
[‘Malicious’] Against Freedom of Speech(s), by the Ant(s) Freedom
Act (‘TAFA’),” dkt. no. 35; “Motion for Consideration or Compelling
Need(s) or Controversies to Litigate by Invoking the Ant(s) Duty
Mitigating Act (‘TADMA’),” dkt. no. 36; “Motion for [‘Extraodinary
[sic] Remedy Act’] (‘ERA’) or Circumstances to Compel Process by
the Ant(s) Reform Multiplicity Act (‘TARMA’),” dkt. no. 37; “Motion

for Mitigating Financial Burden or (‘IFP’) Constitutional Issues
by Massive Issues [‘Right Aggravated’] Treatment Act,” dkt. no.
38;

“Motion

for

Settlement

Agreement(s)

Against

Secretive

Criminals by Inkoking [sic] the National Regulatory Treaties Act
(‘NIRTA’),” dkt. no. 39; and “Motion for [‘Alien Status’] or
[‘Pauperis Status’] or Criteria to Consider by Invoking the ANT(s)
Movement Act (‘TAMA’),” dkt. no. 40.

Additionally, Plaintiff has

filed an Amended Complaint alleging violation of his civil rights.
Dkt. No. 42.
This civil action was initiated in April 2018.
1.

See Dkt. No.

The case was dismissed and judgment entered in March of 2019.

Dkt. Nos. 12, 13.

Since that time, Plaintiff has filed multiple

motions that are basically unintelligible and nonsensical, all of
which the Court denied. The instant filings continue in that vein.
See, e.g., Dkt. No. 14 (“Motion for Administrative Records, and
for a Writ of Certiorari and for Questioning Prisoners Injustice
Reform Acts (‘PICRA’)”); Dkt. No. 16 ("Motion for Supplemental
Injustice Adversely Affected [‘The Ant’s’], and for [‘Related
Mater(s)’] [sic] for Justification Act (‘TAJA’)”); Dkt. No. 19
(“Motion for [‘Alien Status’] Or [‘Pauperis Status’] or Criteria
to Consider by Invoking the Ant(s) Movement Act (‘TAMA’)”); Dkt.
No. 21 (“Motion for ‘Common Sense’ or Access to the Informative
Legal

Materials

or

Opposition

by

[‘The

Ant(s)’]

Library

Act

(‘TALA’)”); Dkt. No. 22 (“Motion for Congressional Power and Apex
2

Disposition Concerns By Invoking the Detainee(s) Issues Freedom
Treatment Act (‘DIFTA’)”); Dkt. No. 23 (“Motion for [‘Unreasonable
Classification(s) Act’] by Compelling Performance Movements on
Crimes

Mitigating

Act

(‘MOCMA’)”);

Dkt.

No.

24

(“Motion

for

Settlement Agreement(s) Against Secretive Criminals by Inkoking
[sic] the National Regulatory Treaties Act (‘NIRTA’)”); Dkt. No.
25

(“Motion

for

Consideration

or

Compelling

Need(s)

or

Controversies to Litigate by Invoking the Ant(s) Duty Mitigating
Act (‘TADMA’)”); Dkt. No. 26 (“Motion for [‘Prompt Notices(s)’]
[sic] or [‘Their Expertise Act’] (‘TEA’), or Opinion(s) by the
National Issues Regulatory Treaties Act (‘NIRTA’)”); Dkt. No. 27
(“Motion for Mitigating Financial Burden or (‘IFP’) Constitutional
Issues by Massive Issues [‘Right Aggravated’] Treatment Act”);
Dkt. No. 28 (“Motion for [‘Manifest Injustice Act’] (MIA) or
[‘Electronic Filling [sic] Act’] Opposition(s) by Secure Academic
Resource Technology Act (‘SARTA’)”); Dkt. No. 29 (“Motion for
[‘Judicial

Intervention(s)’]

and

Clarification

Necessary

by

Invoking the Movement(s) on Crimes Mitigating Act (‘MOCMA’)”).
There is in fact no discernible claim for relief and no
pending litigation for which the Court need consider in forma
pauperis status.

To quote Judge Dudley H. Bowen, Jr. in a previous

Order filed in a case involving Mr. Clervrain, “[t]he Court intuits
Plaintiff will not relent in these filings because it costs him
nothing;

meanwhile,

the

Court

is
3

wasting

its

resources

in

docketing,
Motions.

considering,

and

resolving

Plaintiff’s

frivolous

The Court will not countenance this conduct any longer.”

Clervrain v. Samuel, No. 3:14cv107 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2021), Dkt.
No. 43.
Upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s latest motions, dkt. nos. 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40, are DENIED, and his amended
complaint, dkt. no. 42, is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to

refrain from accepting any other filing in this closed case absent
a prescreening by the Magistrate Judge and Order that the attempted
filing is intelligible and/or makes some semblance of sense.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of April, 2022.

______________________________
HON. LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4