From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lietzke v. City of Montgomery

United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama
Aug 7, 2023
2:20-CV-1031-WKW (M.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2023)

Opinion

2:20-CV-1032-WKW

08-07-2023

BILL LIETZKE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, AL, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

KEITH WATKINS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 7) to which Plaintiff has filed an Objection(Doc. # 8). Based upon a de novo review of the record, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court finds that the Objection lacks merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

Plaintiff filed a document, which he inappropriately labeled as an Order. The document is construed as an Objection.

(1) Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. # 8) is OVERRULED.
(2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 7) is ADOPTED.
(3) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(4) Plaintiff is DECLARED a vexatious litigant.
(5) Plaintiff is PROHIBITED from proceeding in forma pauperis in this District against these Defendants on any complaint arising out of the
January 30, 2018 incident in which police questioned him about reports that he had been following a woman at the First Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama.
(6) Any future in forma pauperis motions Plaintiff files in this District shall be accompanied by a sworn, notarized affidavit stating whether he has ever filed any lawsuits in any court arising out of the same incident(s), act(s), or occurrences(s) as are implicated in the complaint on which he seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. If he has filed any related lawsuits, he must include in his signed, notarized affidavit the name of the court(s) where each such lawsuit was filed, the case number of the related case(s), and the status of the related litigation. He must also attach to his sworn, notarized affidavit (1) a current copy of the docket sheet for each such case and (2) a copy of each and every complaint that he has filed in any such case. Any such attached copy of a complaint shall bear the dated “filed” stamp of the Clerk of the Court in which it was filed, or it shall bear the mark of the CM/ECF (PACER) system showing that it is a copy of the complaint that is in the official court record. Failure to follow these instructions shall result in denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and may result in dismissal of the case with or without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's orders.

Final judgment will be entered separately.


Summaries of

Lietzke v. City of Montgomery

United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama
Aug 7, 2023
2:20-CV-1031-WKW (M.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2023)
Case details for

Lietzke v. City of Montgomery

Case Details

Full title:BILL LIETZKE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, AL, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama

Date published: Aug 7, 2023

Citations

2:20-CV-1031-WKW (M.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2023)

Citing Cases

Youngblood v. Bradford

(Doc. No. 37 at 24.) See United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1554 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Judge Alaimo's order,…

Smith v. City of Montgomery

Further, “under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a municipality like Defendant…