Whether a federal court can impose vexatious-litigant restrictions on a pro se plaintiff's future filings after dismissing a Section 1983 civil rights complaint without prejudice

in the certiorari petition. These matters involve fixed deadlines and active judicial consideration, materially constraining the time available to prepare a petition consistent with this Court’s standards. B. The contemplated petition raises uncommon procedural and institutional questions The petition will raise interrelated procedural and institutional questions that require careful, precise presentation, including: * The procedural effect of filings attributed to a judicial officer who passed away prior to the filing date, where the fact of death was acknowledged only after applicant notified the court; * The absence of clear federal guidance governing the attribution, authority, and procedural consequences of such filings; and + The interaction between dismissals entered “without prejudice” and the simultaneous imposition of vexatious-litigant filing restrictions, which may foreclose practical avenues to pursue claims expressly left undismissed. Because these issues implicate institutional procedure, finality, and access to courts— rather than the merits alone—they warrant deliberate and restrained framing. C. Related authority and disclosure issues require careful treatment The petition will also address circumstances in which a judicial officer later the underlying proceedings—that he had been asked to assume responsibility for applicant’s case by a judge who previously recused due to an admitted inability to be impartial. This acknowledgment occurred only after relevant rulings had been entered and appealed, and after applicant’s opportunity to raise the issue had passed. Careful presentation is necessary to avoid mischaracterization of the record and to frame the issue at an appropriate institutional level. D. Pro se status Applicant proceeds pro se, which further supports the need for additional time to ensure that the petition accurately presents the record and questions for review in a manner consistent with this Court’s expectations. VI. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, applicant respectfully requests that the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari be extended to May 1, 2026. Respectfully submitted, =] John Paul Gomez “ 3313 Kathy Drive Pittsburgh, PA, 15204 (412) 608-7531 Pro se EXHIBITA Sixth Circuit Judgment Doc. 51 Case No, 24-3840 John Paul Gomez v. David Ryan, et al. Case: 24-3840 Document: 51 Filed: 12/02/2025 Page: 1 FILED Dec 2, 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ; FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, = No. 24-3840 JOHN PAUL GOMEZ, v. DAVID RYAN, et al., Before: GIBBONS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. JUDGMENT On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. THIS CAUSE was heard on the record from the district court and was submitted on the briefs without oral argument. IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is ORDERED that the order and judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT Case: 24-3840 Document: 50-1 Filed: 12/02/2025 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION (1 of 9) No. 24-3840 FILED Dec 2, 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 7 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk JOHN PAUL GOMEZ, ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED Vv. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF DAVID RYAN, et al., ) OHIO ) ) Before: GIBBONS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. John Paul Gomez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order and judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, denying him leave to amend, and deeming him a vexatious litigator. Gomez