Shahin v. Delaware Transit Corporation

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 6 MOTION for Reargument re 5 Order. Plaintiff is requested to submit IFP long form application. Failure to submit items within 21 days will result in dismissal of action without prejudice ( Notice of Compliance deadline set for 8/8/2011). Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/13/2011. (ksr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

NINA SHAHIN,

)

)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) Civ. Action No.
)
DELAWARE TRANSIT CORPORATION, )
)
DIVISION OF DEL DOT,
)
Defendant.
)

1O~1147-GMS

MEMORANDUM ORDER

I. BACKGROUND
On January 7, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff, Nina Shahin's ("Shahin") short form
(AO 240) application to proceed without prepayment of fees. (D.!. 4.) When it came to the
court's attention that the United States Supreme Court had, in the recent past and on numerous
occasions, denied Shahin's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it vacated the January
7,2011 order and ordered Shahin to either complete the long form (AO 239) application to
proceed without prepayment of fees so that the court could determine whether she is eligible to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee or to pay the $350.00 filing fee. (D.L 5.) Shahin
was given thirty days from the date of the June 13, 2011 order to comply, or face dismissaL
Instead, she filed a motion for reargument construed by the court as a motion for reconsideration.
(D.L6.)
Shahin contends that the June 13,2011 order is retaliatory and violates her civil and
political rights under the provisions ofthe International Covenant for Political and Civil Rights.
Shahin asserts that, unless she is provided a solid legal basis, she cannot comply with the order to

complete the AO 239, which actually means providing information about the salary of her
husband, a professor at Delaware State University. (D.!. 6.)

II. STANDARD OF LAW
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Shahin to meet. The
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex ref. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669,677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion ... must rely on one of three grounds: (1)
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error oflaw or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591
F .3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F .3d
1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request
that a court rethink a decision already made. See Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough ofGlendon,
836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Motions for reargument or reconsideration may not be
used "as a means to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in
the matter previously decided." Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del.
1990). Reargument, however, may be appropriate where "the Court has patently misunderstood a
party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties,
or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension." Brambles USA, 735 F. Supp. at 1241
(D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted); See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.

III. DISCUSSION
The court provided a basis for its decision to vacate the order denying Shahin leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. That is, the United States Supreme Court has consistently denied her
in forma pauperis status over the past year. Whether to grant or deny a request to proceed in
-2­

forma pauperis lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Jones v. Zimmerman, 752 F.2d
76, 78 (3d Cir. 1985). "[I]n order for a court to grant in forma pauperis status, the litigant
seeking such status must establish that [she] is unable to pay the costs of [her] suit." Walker v.

People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F .2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989); See Freeman v. Edens, No. 07­
12227 MLC, 2007 WL 2406789, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 17,2007) (citing Thompson v. Pisano, No.
06-1817, slip op. at 1 (3d Cir. Nov. 15,2006) (alterations in the original)) (the applicant bears the
"burden to 'provid[e] the [court] with the financial information it need[s] to make a determination
as to whether [s]he qualifiers] for in forma pauperis status.''').
The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, "is designed to ensure that indigent
litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324
(1989). Congress enacted the statute to ensure that administrative court costs and filing fees,
both of which must be paid by everyone else who files a lawsuit, would not prevent indigent
persons from pursuing meaningful litigation. Douris v. Middletown Twp., 293 F. App'x 130, 131
(3d Cir. 2008) (not published) (citing Deutsch v United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 (3d Cir.
1995)). Section 1915(a) allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court

in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, among other things, that she is
unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit/ Id. at 131-32 (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324).

1Section

1915(a)(1) provides as follows:

Subject to subsection (b) (applicable to prisoners], any court of the United States may
authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding,
civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a
person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner
possesses [sic] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such
affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the
person is entitled to redress. 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a)(1). As the Third Circuit notes, the
reference to prisoners in § 1915(a)(1) appears to be a mistake. In forma pauperis status is
-3­

A court's decision whether to grant in forma pauperis status is based solely on the
economic eligibility of the plaintiff. See Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15,19 (3d Cir. 1976). The
court reviews the litigant's financial statement, and, if convinced that he or she is unable to pay
the court costs and filing fees, the court will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Deutsch,
67 F.3d at 1084 n.5. Economic eligibility does not require that a litigant subject herself to
complete destitution to maintain her lawsuit. See Jones v. Zimmerman, 752 F.2d at 79.
Standards for determining whether an individual may proceed without prepayment of fees
are flexible and take into consideration many factors. United States v. Scharf, 354 F.Supp. 450
(E.D. Pa. 1973). A supporting affidavit must state the facts of the affiant's poverty with some
degree of particularity, definiteness, or certainty. United States ex reI. Roberts v. Pennsylvania,
312 F.Supp 1,2 (E.D. Pa. 1969); United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938,940 (9th Cir. 1981).
Inquiries about Shahin's spouse's financial information are material to determine her financial
status. Jeffery v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., Civ. No. 05 C 6458, 2007 WL 611277 (N.D. Ill. Feb.
22,2007); see also Watson v. Washington Twp. ofGloucester Cnty. Pub I. Sch. Dist., Civ. No. 09­
3650(RBK-JS), 2009 WL 2778282 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2009) (denying motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis where plaintiff failed to disclose spouse's income sources and amounts);
United States v. Salemme, 985 F.Supp. 197,201 (D. Mass. 1997). In addition, the court may
consider other assets of Shahin in determining her ability to pay the filing fee, including equity in
real estate. See Ireland v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., No. 97-0563-THE, 1997 WL 85008, at * 1
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 1997) (plaintiff who was unemployed with no money in bank account denied
in forma pauperis status because she had $60,000 of equity in her home); Doyle v. Warner Pub.

afforded to all indigent persons, not just prisoners. Douris v. Middletown Twp., 293 F. at
App'x. 132 n.!.
-4­

Services, Inc., No. 87-C-4154, 1988 WL 67633, at *1 (N.D. IlL June 22,1988) (plaintiff who
earned a "minimal amount" with $400 in the bank denied in forma pauperis status in part
because he had home worth $50,000 with no indication of amount of equity in home); Failro v.

Califano, 79 F.RD. 12, 13 (M.D. Pa. 1978) (plaintiff who earned $409 per month denied in
forma pauperis status because she owned home worth $20,000).
Shahin has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary grounds to warrant reconsideration
of the court's June 13,2011 order. For the above reasons, the court will deny the motion for
reconsiderati on.

t'"

IV. CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington this

11- day of

~
,2011, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The motion for reconsideration is denied. (D.I.6.)
2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the plaintiff shall either fully
complete the long form (AO 239) application to proceed without prepayment of fees so that the
court may determine whether she is eligible to proceed without prepayment of the filing feeor
pay the $350 filing fee.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the long form
(AO 239) application to proceed without prepayment of fees.

NOTE: Failure to timely comply with this order shall result in dismissal ofthis case
without prejudice.

-5­