Edwards v. LaJoie et al

Filing 8

PRISCS - RULING AND ORDER granting 6 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 8/10/11. (Corriette, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
M.A. EDWARDS
v.
Case No.

PRISONER
3:11CV440 (AVC)

COMPLEX WARDEN LAJOIE, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
On April 15, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because the plaintiff had
over $450.00 in his prison bank account and directed the
plaintiff to submit the filing fee within thirty days.

The

plaintiff now asks the court to reconsider its ruling denying the
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is
strict.

See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d

Cir. 1995).

A motion for reconsideration permits the court “to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to consider newly
discovered evidence . . . .”

LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 822

F. Supp. 870, 876-77 (D. Conn. 1993), aff’d, 33 F.3d 50 (2d Cir.
1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The plaintiff claims that a prison counselor submitted
information regarding his inmate account balance which was
inaccurate and confusing.

The plaintiff’s prison account

statement attached to the application reflects an account balance
of $453.24.

The certification of account balance states that the

plaintiff had $16.39 on account, but also indicates an average
account balance over the six month period preceding the statement
of $480.00.

The plaintiff claims that the account balance of

$453.24 actually reflects his spendable account balance and the
balance that he owes the federal courts for filing fees pursuant
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

No documentation to that

effect was submitted with the application to proceed in forma
pauperis.
The court concludes that it did not err in denying the
application to proceed in forma pauperis based on the information
that had been submitted to the court with the application.

Thus,

the motions for reconsideration are granted, but after careful
reconsideration, the relief requested is denied.
CONCLUSION
The Motions for Reconsideration [docs. ##6, 7] are GRANTED.
After careful reconsideration, the relief requested is DENIED.
The court will, however, permit the plaintiff to submit a new
application to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by a
certification of inmate account balance and a summary of the
plaintiff’s trust account, including the first page of the
summary which lists the plaintiff’s balances, sub accounts and
payables as well as subsequent pages which list the summary of
deposits to and withdrawals from the plaintiff’s account over the
last six months.
2

The Clerk shall send the plaintiff a Prisoner’s Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form with a copy of this ruling.
If the plaintiff seeks to file a new application to proceed in
forma pauperis, he must do so within THIRTY days of the date of
this order.

Failure to submit the filing fee or a new

application to proceed will result in dismissal of this action
without prejudice and without further notice from the court.
SO ORDERED in Bridgeport, Connecticut, this _10th_ of
August, 2011.

/s/
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3