Gregory Kelly v. Alabama Public Service Commission, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION GREGORY KELLY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-1007-ECM ) [WO] ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE ) COMMISSION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) O R D E R On May 21, 2025, the Court declared Gregory Kelly (“Kelly”) a vexatious litigant “as a consequence of Kelly’s vexatious filing of shotgun pleadings” and further ordered that “in the event [Gregory] Kelly files a shotgun pleading in the future, after appropriate review, the Court will summarily dismiss the pleading and action without prejudice.” (Doc.

52 at 2 in Kelly v. Montgomery Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd., 2:24-cv-348-RAH- JTA (M.D. Ala.)). Then, on December 15, 2025, the Court ordered that, “[a]s 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.” (Doc. 23 at 3 in Kelly et al. v. Alabama State Port Auth. et al., 2:25-cv-825-RAH-JTA) (M.D. Ala.) (emphasis added)).

On December 19, 2025, Kelly filed this pro se civil action against the Alabama Public Service Commission (“Commission”) and five Commission directors and employees. (Doc. 1). He asserts twenty-five claims against all the Defendants. Also before the Court are Kelly’s motion for new trial and for recusal of the undersigned United States District Judge District Judge (doc. 5); and motion for a special master, for a new trial, and for recusal of United States District Judge Jerusha Adams (doc. 6).

Regarding Kelly’s requests for recusal of the undersigned District Judge, Kelly supports his allegations with little more than fantastical, delusional ramblings which do not warrant further discussion. After reviewing Kelly’s submissions and the entire record, the Court has little trouble concluding that objective, fully informed observers would not “entertain a significant doubt” about the impartiality of the undersigned. See Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988). Additionally, because Judge Adams is not and has never been assigned to this case, Kelly’s request for recusal of Judge Adams is due to be denied as moot. Regarding the remaining matters raised in Kelly’s motions, Kelly has not established entitlement to any of the relief sought.

Further, after careful review, the Court concludes that the complaint is a shotgun pleading because it “assert[s] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015).1 Consequently, this case is due to be denied without prejudice.

1 Additionally, most, if not all, of the claims are plainly time-barred.

Accordingly, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Kelly’s motion for new trial and for recusal of the undersigned United States District Judge District Judge (doc. 5) is DENIED; 2. Kelly’s motion for a special master, for a new trial, and for recusal of United States District Judge Jerusha Adams (doc. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent Kelly requests recusal of Judge Adams. The motion (doc. 6) is DENIED in all other respects; 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice; 4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot, and all pending deadlines are TERMINATED; 5. As soon as practicable but no later than May 6, 2026, Kelly shall pick up the service packets in this case from the Middle District of Alabama Clerk’s Office, located at 1 Church Street, Montgomery, AL 36104.

A separate Final Judgment will be entered.

DONE this 6th day of April, 2026.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE