Pannell v. Brough

Full title: DAVID PANNELL, Plaintiff v. DANIEL BROUGH, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

Date published: Jul 18, 2005

Cause No. 3:02-CV-219 RM (N.D. Ind. Jul. 18, 2005)

Opinion

Cause No. 3:02-CV-219 RM.

July 18, 2005

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT MILLER, District Judge

David Pannell, a pro se prisoner, filed a third motion to amend his complaint since it was dismissed and final judgment was entered on June 21, 2002. Since that date, Mr. Pannell has also filed at least four motions to reconsider that judgment and at least two appeals. All off these efforts to alter the judgment have been unsuccessful.

Now he presents the court with yet another motion to amend his complaint. "[A] party cannot request leave to amend following a final judgment unless that judgment has been vacated." Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1034 (7th Cir. 2000). The judgment in this case has not been vacated and this case remains closed. This case is over and it is long past time for Mr. Pannell to cease filing in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, the court:

(1) DENIES the motion to amend (docket # 79); and

(2) CAUTIONS Mr. Pannell that he may be fined or sanctioned if he again presents the court with a frivolous filing in this case.

SO ORDERED.