Florence v. Carronza et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 13 MOTION Specified Injunctive Relief, 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to Postpone Future motions for sixty (60) days., 16 MOTION for Leave to File Additional Evidence to Support Claim, 12 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and 17 MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(ypippin, )

F l or e nce v. Carronza et al

Do c. 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS H O U S T O N DIVISION T H O M A S FLORENCE, (F o r m e r TDCJ-CID #654322) P l a in tif f , vs. L IN D A CARRONZA, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . § § § § § § § § §

C IV IL ACTION H-08-0754

ORDER O n April 17, 2008, this court dismissed Florence's suit, without prejudice to refiling in the proper venue. (Docket Entry No. 7). Florence filed objections on April 28, 2008. ( D o c k e t Entry No. 9). Florence argued that this court's dismissal order had no effect because h is objections were not addressed. (Docket Entry No. 16, p. 1). Florence is apparently re lyin g on 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which applies to objections to a United States magistrate ju d g e 's proposed findings and recommendations. That statute does not apply here. Even if this court construed Florence's objections as a motion to alter the judgment, h e is not entitled to such relief. Florence has repeatedly filed suits in other federal courts. His p rio r suits include Civil Action No. 6:06-0045. Florence objected to the statement that the c laim s he is asserting in the present case are attempts to relitigate claims presented in this

Dockets.Justia.com

e a rlie r suit, without success. Florence argues that the claims in the instant suit arise "from a whole separate incident" than the claims he raised in Civil Action No. 6:06-0045, (id. at 6 ), but there is significant overlaps and similarities between the two suits that are not e x p lain e d . Florence is unhappy with the result in Civil Action No. 6:06-0045, which is p e n d in g on appeal. The dismissal of this case was without prejudice. (Docket Entry No.7). Florence has a n opportunity to file nonduplicative claims in the proper division and district. Florence is

an experienced litigator and quite capable of filing in the correct venue.
Florence's motion for extension of time, (Docket Entry No. 10), motion to proceed as a pauper, (Docket Entry No. 12), motion for injunctive relief, (Docket Entry No. 13), m o tio n for leave to file additional evidence, (Docket Entry No. 16), and motion for leave to file exhibits, (Docket Entry No. 17), are denied as moot. Florence's objection to this court's d is m is s a l, construed as a motion to alter judgment, (Docket Entry No. 9), is denied. SIGNED on July 29, 2008, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________ L e e H. Rosenthal United States District Judge

2