Restricted Filer - Montford v. Pryor, Jr.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 24-cv-20381-BLOOM/Lett

JOHN MONTFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., et al.,

Defendant. ________________________________/

OMNIBUS ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant John Montford’s (1) Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs’ Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) to Strike the 12/24/24 Denial Order, ECF No [137]; (2) “Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judge Bloom to Clarify How the Superior Court Orders that By 37(b)(2) Required Case Proving Evidence Tampering to Be Corrected Has Turned Out to Be Nothing More than Trash,” ECF No. [138]; (3) “Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judge Bloom to Clarify Why I Am a Restricted Filer and the Defendants . . . that Superior Court Order Required to Be Are Not,” ECF No. [139]; and (4) Motion for Leave to File Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) to Strike the 12/24/24 Denial Order that Covers-Up How Judge Bloom Issued Her Report and Recommendation By Lying, Refusing to Apply Rules 11(b), and 11(c), and Breaking Law 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), ECF No. [140]. The Court has reviewed the Motions, the record, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are stricken. On July 17, 2024, United States District Judge K. Michael Moore maintained Plaintiff’s status as a restricted filer and enjoined him from any future filings in this Court unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, or if leave to file is granted. Any such future motions for leave to file: (1) shall not exceed two pages, (2) shall attach the proposed filing and explain why the proposed filing is not frivolous or an unsubstantiated attack on any previous order entered in this case, and, (3) shall certify, by affidavit and under penalty of perjury, that the proposed filing raises a new issue that has not already been rejected by the Court or the Eleventh Circuit.

ECF No. [93]. The Court maintained Plaintiff’s status as a restricted filer in its November 15, 2024, Order, and again in a December 24, 2024, Order. ECF Nos. [126], [136]. Plaintiffs’ most recent filings fail to comply, as all Motions fail to certify “that the proposed filing raises a new issue that has not already been rejected by the Court or the Eleventh Circuit.” ECF No. [93]. Upon further review, the Motions concerns issues previously raised and addressed by the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motions, ECF No. [137], [138], [139], and [140], are STRICKEN. 2. Plaintiff is ENJOINED from filing any future documents in this case, or any case within the Southern District of Florida, unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, or unless leave to file has been granted. Any such future motions for leave to file: (1) shall not exceed two pages, (2) shall attach the proposed filing and explain why the proposed filing is not frivolous or an unsubstantiated attack on any previous order entered in this case, and, (3) shall certify, by affidavit and under penalty of perjury, that the proposed filing raises a new issue that has not already been rejected by the Court or the Eleventh Circuit. 3. The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED that any document received from Plaintiff Case No. 24-cv-20381-BLOOM/Lett

John Montford (with the exception of motions for leave to file) shall be REJECTED unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court or unless leave to file has been granted. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 16, 2025.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record John Montford 2241 NW 188 Terrace Miami, FL 33056 305-588-4250