Foster v. Trump

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Christopher Foster, Case No. 3:20-cv-532

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Donald Trump, et al.,

Defendants.

Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Foster has filed another motion for reconsideration of my order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. (Doc. No. 28); (see also Doc. No. 25). Foster offers only the same baseless arguments I previously rejected. (See id. and Doc. No. 27). Again, Foster’s dissatisfaction with my ruling is an inappropriate and insufficient ground to support a motion for reconsideration. See, e.g., Meekison v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, I deny his motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 28). Moreover, it is well established that courts have the inherent authority “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Motions such as the ones Foster continues to file in this case – which was closed in this court on September 29, 2020, and in which Foster’s appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on June 2, 2021 – serve no purpose other than to misuse limited judicial resources. Thus, I hereby instruct Foster that any additional filings in this case may result in the entry of an order instructing the Clerk of Court to refuse to accept and file any other filings from Foster without prior leave of court.

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge