ROUSE v. II-VI INCORPORATED et al

Filing 88

ORDER DENYING 85 Motion to Reopen Case; DENYING 86 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This case will remain CLOSED. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 12/17/2015. (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 AND
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Before the Court is another attempt by Plaintiff Ambrosio Rouse (“Rouse”) to re-open a
case dismissed with prejudice on August 26, 2013. Doc. No. 49. Rouse is undaunted by the
decisions denying reconsideration (doc. no. 69), denying an appeal and mandamus petition (CA
13-4233, 3d. Cir. 2014), denying to re-open the case (doc. no. 72), denying the exceptions to the
decision denying to re-open the case (doc. no. 74), denying the appeal of that decision (doc. nos.
83-84), and denying a petition for writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court (577
U.S. __, December 7, 2015).1
He now files another motion to re-open the case and a motion for preliminary injunction
arguing that no court has considered the claims raised in his Complaint. Doc. No. 87. Such an
assertion is nonsense. As the Honorable Judge Eddy stated more than two years (and at least six
legal challenges by Rouse) ago, Rouse “has had many days in many courts and he did not
prevail; he must now move on.” Doc. No. 42.

1

This recitation of the procedural history does not include the relevant and related cases filed in both state and
federal courts that have progressed similarly. See Doc. No. 42 (discussing the underlying action originally filed in
the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County and detailing Rouse’s attempts to challenge the dismissal of that
action).

As Rouse has been reminded again and again, his claims - - no matter how he attempts to
re-style them - - are foreclosed by claim and issue preclusion, barred by judicial immunity, and
untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. See CA 13-4233 and Doc. Nos. 42, 49, 58,
69, 72, 83, and 84.
Rouse’s Motions to Re-Open and for Preliminary Injunction are DENIED. The case will
remain closed.
s/Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge