Keeler v. Neubauer et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 11/29/2011. Mailed to pro se party Quincey Gerald Keeler by regular mail. (aa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

QUINCY GERALD KEELER,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 10-1129-JTM
Case No. 10-1358-JTM

ARAMARK HEALTHCARE SUPPORT SERVICES,
LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on pro se plaintiff Quincy Keeler’s third motion for
reconsideration. The court has previously denied in forma pauperis status, finding that the present
actions were filed vexatiously. (Dkt. No. 20, at 6). The court further stated, in its Order of February
24, 2011, that these actions would be dismissed “unless the plaintiff files the appropriate filing fee
for each respective case within twenty days of the present Order.” (Id. at 6). Following his second
motion for reconsideration, and in light of his failure to pay any filing fee, the court dismissed these
actions and entered judgment for defendant Aramark on July 8, 2011. (Dkt. No. 24). In his latest
motion, Keeler has failed to supply any additional reason for the relief sought, and his motion is
accordingly denied for reasons stated in the court’s prior Orders. (Dkt. No. 20, 24).
In its Order of September 3, 2010, the court also held that Keeler was enjoined “from filing
any additional Complaints in this court with allegations which are similar to his other pending

actions.” (Dkt. No. 16, at 4). Such complaints would be permitted only to the extent that the
presented claims “are not substantially similar to existing litigation.” (Id.) Accordingly, the Clerk
of the Court has forwarded to the undersigned a copy of an Employment Discrimination Complaint
which Keeler now proposes to file against Aramark.
The court has reviewed the proposed Complaint. Unlike his other complaints, which
involved claims of harassment during his employment by Aramark, Keeler now cites only
discrimination occurring on January 20 and 27 of 2011. (Proposed Complaint, at ¶ 2). Although he
advances 25 claims –– many largely redundant in nature –– in the Complaint, all are tied to his
January 27, 2011 termination by Aramark. The Complaint alleges no fact earlier than a December
20, 2010 recorded interview with the plaintiff, which appears to have set in motion his ultimate
dismissal. The court finds that the proposed Complaint raises issues not advanced previously in
Keeler’s other lawsuits. Further, Keeler specifically represents that “This is the last and final
KEELER VS. ARAMARK case.” (Id. at 5).
The court hereby directs the Clerk to filed the Proposed Complaint as a new action, and that
the plaintiff is given leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The injunction previously entered by the court remains in effect. The plaintiff shall make no
attempt to amend the Complaint in the new action without prior approval of the court.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2011 that plaintiff’s Motion
to Reconsider (Dkt. 26) is hereby denied.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE