Opinion
No. CV 05-2097-PHX-DGC (ECV).
November 15, 2005
ORDER
By Order and Judgment filed August 26, 2005, this Court dismissed Petitioner's mandamus action because he failed to pre-pay the $250.00 civil action filing fee as a litigant who has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Dkt . ##6-7. That Order outlined Petitioner's vexatious conduct in courts around the nat ion. Petitioner did not respond by paying the $250.00 filing fee. Instead, he filed a post-judgment motion, which the Court denied. See Dkt. 39.
Now pending is Petitioner's "Ex Parte Motion for Relief from Sua Sponte `Void' Orders of Dismissal Per FRCP 52, 59, 60, Motion to Amend Complaint to Common Law Action as a Supplemental Bill in the Aid of Enforcement of `Foreign Judgments' in This District" (Dkt. #10). Petitioner has also lodged a "Second Amended Verified Complaint." In light of his nonpayment of the filing fee and denial of his post-judgment motion, lodging an amended complaint is procedurally improper. Petitioner's present motion does not address the basis for this Court's dismissal. Nor does it explain why he should not be required to pre-pay the $250.00 filing fee. The motion will be denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's "Ex Parte Motion" (Dkt. #10) is denied.