Opinion
Case No. 2:02-CV-01013DB.
June 7, 2004
ORDER
Before the Court are three motions filed by plaintiff on April 15, 2004: 1) a Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order pursuant to FRCP 60(a) or (b); 2) a Motion for a Hearing in Support of Relief from Judgment; and 3) a Motion for Protective Order in Support of Relief from Judgment. The plaintiff is seeking relief from an amended order issued by this Court on April 15, 2003 ("April 15 Order") dismissing his case as frivolous as well as for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court relied upon 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and FRCP 12(b)(6) as support for its order.
Plaintiff claims several reasons why relief from the April 15 Order should be granted to him. He alleges that the April 15 Order contains inaccuracies and mistakes but points to only one phrase the Court used to describe the essence of his complaint as an error. Additionally, plaintiff alleges that there was fraud committed by the defendants as well as by the Court itself; however, plaintiff does not point to any specific action of any defendant or the Court that forms the basis of his allegations. The Court finds these arguments, as well as the other arguments put forth in plaintiff's motion, baseless and without merit.
Moreover, plaintiff has alleged no new facts that would alter the Court's previous ruling that the plaintiff's complaint is frivolous. Therefore, the Court DENIES plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order. Because plaintiff's other two motions were dependent upon the Court granting relief from the April 15 Order, they are likewise DENIED. Furthermore, the Court will no longer entertain motions filed by plaintiff in this case. Any further motions filed by plaintiff will not be docketed with the Court, and the defendants need not respond to any future motions made by plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED.