Kellat v. Owens et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying 85 Motion to supplement pleading. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 1/22/13. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
JOHN KELLAT,

U.S. 199 (2007)); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Consequently, no pleading, not even a
defective one, exists for Kellat to
supplement. Kellat's motion is therefore
DENIED.

Plaintiff,
V.

6:1 1-cv-126
This

BRIAN OWENS; BRUCE CHATMAN;
DON JARRIEL; JOHN PAUL; Mr.
MOSELEY; Mr. STRICKLAND;
TOMMY JONES; DEAN BROOME;
SHANNON ROLAND; JOHN DOE; and
JANE DOE,
Defendants.

day of January 2013.

A4

iDG

'

UNITED STATES DIS ICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ORDER
Before the Court is John Kellat's
("Kellat") Motion to Supplement Pleading.
ECF No. 85.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d)
states that a "court may. . . permit a party to
serve a supplemental pleading setting out
any transaction, occurrence, or event that
happened after the date of the pleading to be
supplemented. The court may permit
supplementation even though the original
pleading is defective in stating a claim or
defense." The Court, however, long ago
dismissed Kellat's original pleading because
he "is a frequent filer who must pay the full
filing fee before 'federal courts may
consider [his] lawsuit[ or] appeals.". See
ECF No. 56 at 3 (citing Rivera v. Aiim, 144
F.3d 719, 723 (11th Cir. 1998), abrogated
on other grounds by, Jones v. Bock, 549

The Court notes that supplementation would be
futile, even if possible. At the risk of sounding like a
broken record, the Court repeats: Kellat is a frequent
filer who by law must pay the full filing fee before a
court may hear his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
ECF No. 56 at 3. The substance of Kellat's claims
may have all the merit in the world, but this Court
will not—nor will any other federal tribunal—
entertain any actions, other than one showing Kellat
is in imminent danger of serious physical injury,
initiated by Kellat unless he pays the full filing fee.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Kellat wishes to have the
allegations in this motion heard, he needs to file a
new complaint entirely. Much more importantly, he
must pay the full filing fee when he files that new
complaint. Otherwise the Court will be obligated to
dismiss that complaint as it has the complaint in this
case. See Casey v. Scot:, No. 12-10646, 2012 WL
5328306, at l (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 2012) (citing
Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1235 (11th Cir.
2002).