Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01165/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01165-2/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

Leon Dews, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1165-PHX-SMM (DKD)

ORDER

On July 14, 2007, Plaintiff Leon Dews, who is confined in the California State Prison

in Wasco, California, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend because the

Complaint was not filed on the court-approved form. In connection with granting Plaintiff’s

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court issued a Payment Order directing

monthly payment of the filing fee from Plaintiff’s inmate account (Doc. #5). 

Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Reconsider Order for Payment of Inmate Filing

Fee (Doc. #7) and a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #8). The Court

will deny the motions.

I. Second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

The second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied as moot; the Court

has already granted Plaintiff the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis. 

Case 2:07-cv-01165-SMM--DKD Document 9 Filed 07/16/07 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

- 2 -

II. Reconsideration of Payment Order

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 to reconsider the

Payment Order. Instead, he complains about a mix-up with forms for filing a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus and forms for filing a civil rights complaint and asks this Court to

provide him with an order to the law library, copy machine, and law books. 

The Court notes 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. In addition, the Court denies Plaintiff’s requests and notes that

it has already provided Plaintiff with forms for filing a civil rights complaint, which include

instructions. Accordingly,

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01165-SMM--DKD Document 9 Filed 07/16/07 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 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Payment Order (Doc. #7) is denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #8) is denied as

moot.

DATED this 13th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01165-SMM--DKD Document 9 Filed 07/16/07 Page 3 of 3