Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00816/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00816-4/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 SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rockney Willard Martineau, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Silvia R. Arellano, et al., 

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0816-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

 Plaintiff Rockney Willard Martineau, an inmate at the Maricopa County Towers Jail

in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on

April 18, 2007. On May 22, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis, obligating him to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00, and dismissed the

Complaint, with leave to amend, because it did not state a claim (Doc. #5). On June 1, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss the action, which the Court construed as a Notice of

Voluntary Dismissal and granted (Doc. #9). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Waiver of Fees,

asking the Court to waive or defer the fee in view of his Motion to Dismiss. The Court

denied the Motion for Waiver of Fees, noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which governs

proceedings in forma pauperis, does not provide any authority or mechanism for the Court

to excuse Plaintiff from having to pay his filing fee (Doc. #9). 

Case 2:07-cv-00816-SMM--JRI Document 12 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 2
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 - 2 -

 Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Waiver of the Filing Fee

(Doc. #10); the Court will deny the motion. Plaintiff has also filed a letter (Doc. #11) in

which he claims that prior documents filed with the Court (“International Promissory Note”

and “1040-V Payment Voucher”) satisfy the $350.00 filing fee in this matter. The Court

notes that the documents filed do not, in fact, satisfy the filing fee requirement.

 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is

appropriate if the district 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 v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of

asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.’”

Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)). Here, Plaintiff presents no arguments in

support of his motion. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

Regarding Waiver of the Filing Fee (Doc. #10).

DATED this 12th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00816-SMM--JRI Document 12 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 2