The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY KELLY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-348-RAH-JTA
) (WO)
THE WATER WORKS AND )
SANITARY SEWER BOARD OF THE )
CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the court is the document filed by pro se Plaintiff Gregory Kelly on August
30, 2024 entitled “Plaintiff’s Notice Regarding Order to Show Cause; or in the Alternative
a Summary Judgement Due to No Undisputed Genuine Facts in this Case” (Doc. No. 37
(sic).) The court CONSTRUES the document as containing Kelly’s response to
Defendants’ August 15, 2024 motion to dismiss,1 as containing a motion for summary
judgment, and as containing a motion for default judgment. Also before the court is Kelly’s
December 10, 2024 motion (Doc. No. 38) entitled “2nd Show Cause Motion Seeking
Default Judgment Against the Defendants for Failing to Answer a Complaint Within 14
Days or In the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgement Against the Defendants Due to
No Undisputed Genuine Facts in the Case” (Doc. No. 38), which the court CONSTRUES
1 Defendants’ August 15, 2024 motion to dismiss is Document Number 34 on the docket sheet.
as containing a motion for summary judgment and a motion for default judgment. On
today, the court entered an order striking the amended complaint (Doc. No. 21) as a shotgun
pleading and ordering Kelly to file an amended complaint. Therefore, the motions for
default judgment and motions for summary judgment are due to be denied as moot.
In the motions, Kelly argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because, he contends, Defendants failed to timely answer or otherwise respond to his
amended complaint within the time allotted by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. However, Defendants timely filed their August 15, 2024 motion to dismiss by
the deadline set by the court. (See Docs. No. 23, 31 (orders extending time for the filing of
Defendants’ motion to dismiss).) Rule 15 permits such court action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(3) (“Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended
pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or
within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.” (emphasis
added)).
Multiple times, the court has explained to Kelly that, under the circumstances, a
motion to dismiss is timely filed, and the court has warned him that continuing to file
“motions for summary judgment” on such grounds is frivolous and violates his obligations
under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 The court has also previously
2 Kelly filed his first motion for default judgment and motion for summary judgment on August
30, 2024. (Doc. No. 37.) By then, he had been told at least twice that such arguments were
frivolous. See Kelly v. Montgomery Hous. Auth., No. 2:24-CV-166-MHT-JTA, 2024 WL 3240637
(M.D. Ala. June 28, 2024). Kelly filed his second motion for default judgment and motion for
summary judgment on December 10, 2024. (Doc. No. 38.) By then, he had been told at least three
“ADVISED [Kelly] that he will_be_ subject to sanctions if he continues to clutter the
dockets with motions and other filings containing repeat attempts at raising the same
frivolous arguments.” See Kelly v. Elite Roofing, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-388-MHT-JTA, 2024
WL 4994508, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 5, 2024) (emphasis in original). Because the motions
for default judgment and motions for summary judgment are moot in this instance, and to
conserve judicial resources, the court will not initiate the sanctions process against Kelly
at this time. However, Kelly is ADVISED that, if he again raises the same frivolous
arguments in support of any motion in this or any other action before the undersigned,
he will be subject to sanctions, which may include monetary sanctions and will include
a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motions for default judgment (Docs. No. 37, 38) are DENIED as
moot.
2. Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment (Docs. No. 37, 38) are DENIED as
moot.
DONE this 2nd day of January, 2025.
ma T. ADAMS
UNIJ/PED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
times that such arguments were frivolous. See Kelly v. Elite Roofing, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-388-
MHT-JTA, 2024 WL 4994508, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 5, 2024).