Youngblood v. Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. (INMATE 1)

Filing 84

ORDER that this matter is before the court on plaintiffs objection to the courts order assessing a $ 505 filing fee on his second notice of interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff argues that the second notice of interlocutory appeal should have been tr eated as an amended notice of interlocutory appeal, and the new filing fee should not have been assessed. Upon consideration of the objection, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The objection (doc. no. 77) is construed as a motion for reconsideration. (2) The motion for reconsideration (doc. no. 77) is granted. (3) The order (doc. no. 74) assessing fees for the second notice of appeal is vacated. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 09/01/2015. (ydw, ) Copies mailed to plaintiff, and Account Clerk at Easterling Correctional Facility as directed. Furnished to Cashier and Financial Section.

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION GARY W. YOUNGBLOOD 263709, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ALA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15cv214-MHT (WO) ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s objection to the court’s order assessing a $ 505 filing fee on his Plaintiff second argues interlocutory notice that of interlocutory the second appeal. notice of appeal should have been treated as an amended notice of interlocutory appeal, and the new filing fee consideration should of not the have been objection, it assessed. is ORDERED Upon as follows: (1) The objection (doc. no. 77) is construed as a motion for reconsideration. (2) The motion for reconsideration (doc. no. 77) is granted. (3) The order (doc. no. 74) assessing fees for the second notice of appeal is vacated. DONE, this the 1st day of September, 2015. /s/ Myron H. Thompson____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?