JEREMY L. SMALLWOOD
v.
CARLTON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court denied Plaintiff's second motion for injunction because it contained the same deficiencies as the previously denied first motion.
Plaintiff filed a second motion for injunction after his first was denied and the case was closed. The second motion was filed before the order closin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mailbox Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's Second Motion for Injunction. (Doc. 4). By Order dated December 11, 2025, Plaintiff's first Motion for Injunction was denied due to multiple deficiencies and the case was closed. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff's Second Motion was filed, under the mailbox rule,¹ prior to the Court's Order, but was received and docketed after the Order was entered. The Second Motion presents similar claims to the first motion and contains the same deficiencies. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Motion for Injunction (Doc. 4) is DENIED. The case remains CLOSED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on December 16, 2025.
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Pro Se Party
[fn 1]: Under the “mailbox rule,” a prisoner's filing is deemed filed on the date it was signed and delivered to authorities for mailing. See Adams v. United States, 173 F. 3d 1339 (11th Cir. 1999).