The opinion of the court was delivered by: RENÉE Marie Bumb United States District Judge
[Docket Entry Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16]
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
1. On September 21, 2009, the Clerk docketed Plaintiff's original complaint. See Docket Entry No. 1. The original complaint, which arrived accompanied by Plaintiff's application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis, was packed into a 100-page submission, encompassed 371 paragraphs, provided a patchy, hard-to-follow narrative largely consisting of conclusory statements or leaps of logic not amendable to clear undeastanding, and had certain words capitalized, bolded and/or underlined at random. See id. The original complaint named, as Defendants in this matter, the following four persons: Jeff Grondolsky, Richard Harbik, Robin Hood and Dr. Sulayman. See id. at 1-3.
2. On September 30, 2009, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order ("September Order") granting Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and dismissing the original complaint, without prejudice, for failure to comply with the requirements of Rules 8, 18 and 20. See Docket Entry No. 2 (explaining to Plaintiff the shortcomings of his complaint and providing Plaintiff with detailed guidance as to the requirements of Rules 8, 18 and 20). The Court directed the Clerk to administratively terminate this matter, subject to reopening in the event Plaintiff submits, within thirty days from the entry of the September Order, Plaintiff's amended complaint complying with the requirements of Rules 8, 18 and 20.*fn1 See id. The Court also directed the Clerk to serve Plaintiff with a blank civil complaint form and urged Plaintiff to utilize the form in order to control the volume and content of his amended pleading. See id. at 13 and n.2.
3. One week later, Plaintiff -- instead of submitting an amended pleading -- submitted a motion seemingly attempting to assert that he is being denied access to the courts via his prison officials' decision to take possession of Plaintiff's certain legal material. See Docket Entry No. 3 (document titled "Motion Demanding Meaningful Court Access," hereinafter "Meaningful Access Motion" ).
4. One week after that, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's "Meaningful Access Motion" as moot, on the grounds that Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed, that the Court could not exercise jurisdiction over a matter having no pleading but just a motion, and that nothing prevented Plaintiff from incorporating his access-to-court challenges in his then-yet-to-be-submitted amended complaint. See Docket Entry No. 4.
5. However, in response to the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's "Meaningful Access Motion," Plaintiff -- instead of filing his amended complaint -- filed two more motions. See Docket Entries Nos. 6 and 7 (documents titled "Motion for Declaratory Relief" and "Motion to Consolidate the Court's Order Dismissing the Plaintiff's Motion for Meaningful Court Access into Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Relief," hereinafter, collectively, "Declaratory Consolidation Motions").
6. On November 5, 2009, this Court issued another order ("November Order"), which re-explained to Plaintiff the jurisdictional invalidity of Plaintiff's "pleading in motion" process, and extended Plaintiff's time to file an amended complaint. See Docket Entry No. 8. In no ambiguous terms, the Court re-emphasized to Plaintiff that Plaintiff's amended complaint "should be a clear and concise document complying with the requirements of Rules 8, 18 and 20, as detailed to Plaintiff in the September Order." Id. at 3 and n.3.
7. On November 17, 2009, the Clerk received Plaintiff's amended complaint, see Docket Entry No. 10, the content of which is detailed infra. Then, within two weeks, the Clerk received another round of Plaintiff's motions. Specifically:
a. On November 20, 2009, the Clerk received Plaintiff's "Second Motion Demanding Meaningful Court Access." See Docket Entry No. 11 (hereinafter "Second Meaningful Access Motion"). Plaintiff's "Second Meaningful Access Motion" replicated his first "Meaningful Access Motion," short of the word "second" being entered in the title and in the caption. Compare Docket Entry No. 11 to Docket Entry No. 3 (replicating the same dozen pages).
b. On November 23, 2009, the Clerk received Plaintiff's letter/motion requesting the Clerk to "mark the docket that the case is reopened," see Docket Entry No. 13 ("Motion to Reopen"), even though the Court's September Order unambiguously clarified to Plaintiff that, upon receipt of Plaintiff's amended complaint, the Court [would] enter an order directing the Clerk to reopen this matter." Docket Entry No. 2, at 11.
c. On December 1, 2009, the Clerk received another motion from Plaintiff. See Docket Entry No. 14. The title of that document read:
MOTION IN DOCKET(S) (8) AND (13) FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF , 28 U.S.C. §2201 ANS §2202, UNDER THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 12-21-2009, CONSIDERATION CAUSED BY THE 9-3-02009 DISMISSAL ORDER IN THIS ACTION BY SERIOUS ABUSE OF DISCRETION USED FOR THE UNJUST BENEFIT OF THE DEFENDANT PRISON EXECUTIVE(S) THAT MUST STOP NOW WITH THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PROCEEDINGS (AND) DISCERNEMENTS [SIC.] IN EXHIBIT 1 FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S FILED APPLICATION FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IN THIS LAW SUIT BASED THE ...