Kelly

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY KELLY and )

ANNETTE B. KELLY, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:26cv439-MHT

) (WO)

ALABAMA STATE PERSONNEL )

BOARD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

SUMMARY DISMISSAL ORDER

This case is before the court for review of the

complaint filed by pro se plaintiffs Gregory Kelly and

Annette B. Kelly. The complaint names as defendants

around 50 different Alabama governmental agencies and

boards covering vastly different subjects--from the

Department of Agriculture and Industries to the Board

of Veterinary Medical Examiners—and asserts causes of

action against them under the National Defense

Authorization Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,

the criminal statute for deprivation of civil rights

(18 U.S.C. § 242), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (conspiracy to interfere with

civil rights), and the Supremacy Clause of the United

States Constitution.

Plaintiff Gregory Kelly has been declared a

vexatious litigant by this court. See Kelly v.

Montgomery Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd., No.

2:24cv348-RAH, 2025 WL 1461271, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May

21, 2025). Because of Gregory Kelly’s repeated filing

of frivolous and shotgun complaints and Annette B.

Kelly’s repeated joining with him as a plaintiff on

such complaints, on December 15, 2025, the court

entered the following order:

“As a consequence of Gregory Kelly’s vexatious

filing of shotgun and frivolous pleadings, and

now by and through his wife, Annette B. Kelly,

in the event Gregory Kelly or anyone acting in

concert with him, including Annette B. Kelly,

files a shotgun or facially frivolous complaint

in the future, after appropriate review, the

Court will summarily dismiss the pleading and

the action without prior notice.”

2

Kelly v. Alabama State Port Auth., No. 2:25cv825-RAH,

2025 WL 3633214, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 15, 2025).

The court has conducted an appropriate review of

the complaint in this new case, which was filed on June

3, 2026. The complaint is a shotgun pleading because

it is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial

facts not obviously connected to any particular cause

of action.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's

Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1322 (11th Cir. 2015). In

addition, the complaint constitutes a shotgun pleading

because it contains “multiple claims against multiple

defendants without specifying which of the defendants

are responsible for which acts or omissions.” Id. at

1323. Therefore, the complaint and this case will be

dismissed pursuant to the above-quoted order.

***

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the complaint (Doc.

1), and this case in its entirety, are summarily

dismissed without prejudice.

3

This case is closed.

The plaintiffs are advised that, within 21 days

from the date of this order, they should pick up from

the clerk of court’s office the service materials they

provided for this case. If they do not do so, their

service materials may be discarded.

DONE, this the 4th day of June, 2026.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4