Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01105/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01105-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Stoller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of New York Mellon Trust, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01105-PHX-GMS-JRI

ORDER

On November 7, 2011, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice after Plaintiff

failed to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or to file an Application for Leave to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis using the court-approved form for prisoners. (Doc. 63.) On November 16,

2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

(Doc. 70, 71.)

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be

directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309

(D. Ariz. 1992).

Case 2:11-cv-01105-GMS--JRI Document 72 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to the Dixon Correctional Center in Dixon,

Illinois. (Doc. 67.)

- 2 -

In its July 25, 2011 Order, the Court informed Plaintiff of the following: 

When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing

fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis, pay the fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An

application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and

a certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months

preceding the filing of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate

must submit statements from each institution where he was confined during the

six-month period. Id. To assist prisoners in meeting these requirements, the

Court requires use of a form application. LRCiv 3.4(a).

If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court

will assess an initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly

deposits or the average monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is

greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee will only be

collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The balance of the fee

will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month’s

income credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the account

exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

(Doc. 9 at 1-2.) 

Because Plaintiff failed to use this District’s approved form or to provide the

statutorily-required information, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, but granted him 30 days in which to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis using the court-approved form. (Id.) The Court

explicitly informed Plaintiff that the failure to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or to file an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis using the court-approved form would result in the

dismissal of this case without prejudice. (Id.) 

Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor submitted the court-approved form in forma

pauperis application for use by inmates. Instead, on September 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

document captioned “Judicial Notice” in which he asserted that the “appropriate officer of

the Lake County Jail would not sign the in forma pauperis form” and jail policy prevented

inmates from making photocopies.1

 (Doc. 52.) As the Court stated in its Order dismissing

this case,

Case 2:11-cv-01105-GMS--JRI Document 72 Filed 01/03/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Even assuming jail officials refused to provide a six month inmate account

statement or to complete the account certification, Plaintiff has failed to

complete and file his portion of this District’s approved in forma pauperis

application. Plaintiff’s contention that jail officials refuse to allow inmates to

make photocopies is not credible in light of Plaintiff’s voluminous filings in

this, and other, cases while incarcerated. Because Plaintiff has failed to pay

the filing fee or to file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on this

District’s approved form, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice

. . . . 

(Doc. 63 at 6.)

Plaintiff has not alleged or shown that the Court clearly erred or that dismissal was

manifestly unjust. Further, he has not presented newly discovered evidence or cited an

intervening change in controlling law. Moreover, although Plaintiff filed another motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, including a partially complete court-approved in forma pauperis

application, Plaintiff failed to have prison officials certify the amount in his inmate account

or to submit an inmate trust account statement from prison officials. In short, even if the

Court were inclined to grant reconsideration, Plaintiff has not submitted a properly completed

in forma pauperis application by a prisoner. Under these circumstances, both of Plaintiff’s

motions will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and to proceed in forma pauperis are

denied. (Doc. 70, 71.)

(2) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01105-GMS--JRI Document 72 Filed 01/03/12 Page 3 of 3