Keelan v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 17-20158-CIV-MARTINEZ/GOODMAN [Criminal Case No. 12-CR-20496-MARTINEZ]

THOMAS PATRICK KEELAN,

Petitioner, v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ______________________________/ ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A HEARING

Petitioner Thomas Patrick Keelan filed a “Motion for a Hearing to Expose Fraud and Attempted Murder by the Court.” [ECF No. 84 (“Motion”)]. This is in addition to Keelan’s previously filed “Motion for Hearing on Fraud-on-the-Court/Second 2255” and the hearing requests made in his substantive “fraud on the court” motions. See [ECF Nos. 55 (“Keelan will need counsel for the hearing, which the court MUST deem essential.”); 71 (“At minimum, a hearing is required.”)]. United States District Judge Jose E. Martinez referred the case to the Undersigned for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 5]. For the reasons discussed below, the Undersigned denies Keelan’s motion. The Undersigned issued a Report and Recommendations on Keelan’s Motion to Set Aside Conviction and Sentence Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) [ECF No. 63], and Keelan filed objections [ECF No. 65]. The Undersigned also issued an Omnibus Report and Recommendations on Keelan’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 64], Keelan’s Motion for Permission to File a Second and Successive § 2255 Motion [ECF No. 69], Keelan’s Motion to Vacate for Fraud on the Court [ECF No. 71], and Keelan’s Motion for a Hearing on Fraud-on-the-Court/Second 2255 [ECF No. 74], which included three requests for a hearing. [ECF No. 75]. Keelan has not filed objections to the Omnibus Report and Recommendations. These motions are all still pending. It is inappropriate for a litigant to file motions which merely repeat allegations and arguments raised in previous motions. See Fisher v. Whitlock, 784 F. App'x 711, 714 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking a litigant’s fifth motion for reconsideration, stating that it fell within the district court’s “inherent power to manage its docket”). Further, there is no need to file additional motions requesting the same relief as previous motions which are still pending. Therefore, the Undersigned denies Keelan’s Motion. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on December 8, 2022.

na Zn Goodman UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: The Honorable Jose E. Martinez All counsel of record