ROUSE v. II-VI INCORPORATED et al

Filing 103

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 101 and 102 . Due to Plaintiff's demonstrated pattern of making repetitive, groundless filings, the Clerk of Court is directed to reject future filings by the Plaintiff at this case number. Plaintiff is prohibited from filing further pleadings at this case number without pre-authorization by the Court. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 6/19/18. (eet)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMBROSIO ROUSE,
Plaintiff,

13cv0065
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
II-VI INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: MOTION TO RE-OPEN THE CASE (DOC. NO. 101)
AND MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. RULE 60(d)(3) (DOC. NO. 102)
AND ORDER ENJOINING PLAINTIFF FROM FILING FURTHER PLEADINGS
Before the Court are two motions by Plaintiff Ambrosio Rouse seeking to re-open this
long-closed case. Doc. Nos. 101 and 102. Plaintiff has been well-advised, by the decisions of
this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the United States
Supreme Court, that this case is closed. See Doc. No. 88 (detailing procedural history of the
case). The Court of Appeals has sanctioned Plaintiff for filing meritless challenges to the
disposition of this case. See Doc. No. 100-2 (awarding Fed. R. App. P. 38 damages to
Defendants for Plaintiff’s frivolous appeal).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions seeking to re-open this case, Doc. Nos. 101 and 102, are
DENIED. Due to Plaintiff’s demonstrated pattern of making repetitive, groundless filings, the
Clerk of Court is directed to reject future filings by the Plaintiff at this case number. See Chipps
v. U.S.D.C. for the M.D. of Pa., 882 F.2d 72 (3d Cir. 1989). Plaintiff is prohibited from filing
further pleadings at this case number without pre-authorization by the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of June, 2018,
s/Arthur J. Schwab_____
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge