Opinion
6:08-cv-108.
August 31, 2011
ORDER
Plaintiff Ulysses Holloway, Jr. ("Plaintiff") filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 8, 2008, and an amended complaint on April 6, 2009. See Docs. 1; 9. The Magistrate Judge recommended the dismissal of two original defendants, and the Court adopted the recommendation. See Docs. 10; 14. The remaining defendants filed their answer on July 22, 2009, and a motion for summary judgment on January 8, 2010. See Docs. 19; 33. On May 10, 2010, the Court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation that this Court grant the summary judgment motion, entering judgment for Defendants. See Docs. 39; 42; 43. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Plaintiff's subsequent appeal of the judgment as frivolous on October 28, 2010. See Doc. 55.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's "motion" filed with the Court on August 4, 2011. See Doc. 56. The motion consists of a series of documents that are unrelated to this case and, generally, to each other, and some were originally filed in entirely different cases. See id.; see also, e.g., Holloway v. Flowers, No. CV693-024 (S.D. Ga. 1993). Only one page seems to concern the underlying action. See Doc. 56 at 1. Because this Court must liberally construe pro se filings, see Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (1998), the Court will construe this one page of Plaintiff's motion as a motion to reopen and a motion for an injunction.
In his motion, Plaintiff seems to desire the issuance of warrants as well as the issuance of an injunction. See Doc. 56 at 1. Plaintiff does not clearly specify either to whom warrants should be served or the action that ought to be enjoined. Plaintiff also gives no legal argument for the issuance of either remedy. Plaintiff seems to desire a trial. See id. ("This has got to stop now. All I'm asking is let's get this done, also witnesses for, Petitioner, will be called, There 3 at time now, may be additional later."). In addition, he seems to have added new defendants. See id. (including Cathy Blackshear, K.C. Holloway, Visor Smith, Hugh Smith, Acting Warden Chapman, and D.F. Todd).
Such an unintelligible prayer for relief, to the extent that the document requests any relief at all, does not justify the reopening of this case. If Plaintiff wishes to raise new allegations, he must raise such claims in a new, original complaint. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.