Opinion
13cv0065
12-17-2015
AMBROSIO ROUSE, Plaintiff, v. II-VI INCORPORATED, ET AL., Defendants.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: MOTION TO RE-OPEN AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Before the Court is another attempt by Plaintiff Ambrosio Rouse ("Rouse") to re-open a case dismissed with prejudice on August 26, 2013. Doc. No. 49. Rouse is undaunted by the decisions denying reconsideration (doc. no. 69), denying an appeal and mandamus petition (CA 13-4233, 3d. Cir. 2014), denying to re-open the case (doc. no. 72), denying the exceptions to the decision denying to re-open the case (doc. no. 74), denying the appeal of that decision (doc. nos. 83-84), and denying a petition for writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court (577 U.S. ___, December 7, 2015).
This recitation of the procedural history does not include the relevant and related cases filed in both state and federal courts that have progressed similarly. See Doc. No. 42 (discussing the underlying action originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County and detailing Rouse's attempts to challenge the dismissal of that action). --------
He now files another motion to re-open the case and a motion for preliminary injunction arguing that no court has considered the claims raised in his Complaint. Doc. No. 87. Such an assertion is nonsense. As the Honorable Judge Eddy stated more than two years (and at least six legal challenges by Rouse) ago, Rouse "has had many days in many courts and he did not prevail; he must now move on." Doc. No. 42.
As Rouse has been reminded again and again, his claims - - no matter how he attempts to re-style them - - are foreclosed by claim and issue preclusion, barred by judicial immunity, and untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. See CA 13-4233 and Doc. Nos. 42, 49, 58, 69, 72, 83, and 84.
Rouse's Motions to Re-Open and for Preliminary Injunction are DENIED. The case will remain closed.
s/Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge