Gardner v. Budnik et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 36 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 3/16/2016. (lej)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
WALLACE A. GARDNER, ADC # 110784
CHRISTOPHER BUDNIK, Deputy Warden,
Varner Unit; et al.
On March 4, 2016, I revoked Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (‘IFP’) status after finding he was
not in imminent danger of serious harm. (Doc. No. 30.) Now, he has asked me to reconsider that
ruling. (Doc. No. 36.) After review of Plaintiff’s arguments, I decline to reverse my decision.
In reaching my decision to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status, I relied on medical records produced
by Defendants. These records indicated Plaintiff had made no medical complaints related to paint
fumes since October 16, 2015 - several months before this action was filed.1 (Doc. No. 21-2 at 2-7.)
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues he voiced complaints of headaches well after that
date - notably on November 6, 2015, and again on January 27, 2016. (Doc. No. 36 at 1.) First, it is
unclear whether these headaches are related to his alleged exposure to paint fumes. Defendants state
Plaintiff is not currently being treated for any health issues associated with exposure. (Doc. No. 21
at 5.) Additionally, his medical records indicate Plaintiff’s sick calls have been intermittent rather
than constant and, since his alleged exposure, he has frequently failed to raise any medical
complaints whatsoever during staff rounds. (Doc. No. 21-2 at 2-7.) As stated in my previous Order,
this clear lack of medical urgency weighs heavily against Plaintiff’s claim that he was in imminent
danger at the time this suit was filed.
This action was filed on January 25, 2016. (Doc. No. 2.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED.
DATED this 16th day of March, 2016.
JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?