Opinion
Case No. 2:96-cv-00557.
April 21, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by pro se Plaintiff, Vincent R. Griffin ("Plaintiff" or "Griffin"). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.
On June 3, 1996, Plaintiff commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Columbus, the mayor of Columbus, a police chief, a sheriff, a doctor at the county jail, a prison warden, and several unnamed defendants. Plaintiff alleged the following: (1) two unnamed John Doe Defendants arrested him for arson at a local hospital before he had been adequately treated for severe burns; (2) a third John Doe Defendant booked him at jail; (3) Defendant Dr. Gutheil failed to provide him with adequate medical care while he was incarcerated; and (4) a fourth John Doe Defendant denied him adequate treatment after he was transferred to state prison.
On January 13, 2000, this Court dismissed the case against the unnamed Defendants because they were never served with a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint. This Court also dismissed the case against the named Defendants because Griffin's Complaint was not filed within the two year limitations period. Reconsideration was subsequently denied. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court's decision on May 2, 2001, Griffin v. City of Columbus, 10 Fed. Appx. 271 (6th Cir. 2001), and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, Griffin v. City of Columbus, 122 S. Ct. 655 (2001).
Since then, Plaintiff has brought a number of different motions, all of which have been denied by this Court. First, on September 27, 2002, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse and Release finding that Plaintiff had not stated any grounds upon which recusal was appropriate in this case, especially considering that Plaintiff had already appealed this Court's decision dismissing his Complaint. Next, on September 24, 2003, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and his motion for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order. Finally, on July 15, 2004, the Court, finding that Plaintiff had no basis to seek further relief in this case, found the following motions filed by Plaintiff to be moot: (1) Motion to Compel and Authenticate Order of 9/25/2003; (2) Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief from Judgment and Order; (3) Motion to Appoint Counsel; (4) Motion for Hearing; and (5) Motion to Compromise. Moreover, the Court ordered that the Clerk of Courts was to reject any further filings by Plaintiff in this case. Nevertheless, Plaintiff subsequently objected to the Court's decision denying his pleadings, and on September 15, 2005, he filed the instant motion for miscellaneous relief.
Though courts afford pro se plaintiffs a measure of leniency, the Sixth Circuit has held that even with such cases, courts should not accept legal conclusions in unwarranted factual inferences. See Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff's motion is entirely devoid of legal precedent and does not even meet the more lenient standard afforded to pro se plaintiffs.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is DENIED. Once again, this Court directs the Clerk of Courts to reject any further filings by Plaintiff in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.