Noble v. State Of Delaware et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 4/28/17. (sar)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMAS E . NOBLE,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 17-353-LPS

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs request to proceed in jorma pauperis. (See D.l.

8) Plaintiff moves for reconsideration on the grounds that his monthly expenses far exceed his
monthly income. (D.I. 9) Plaintiff also requests counsel. (D.I. 3)

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
A.

Legal Standards

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 Ca.ft ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration is the "functional equivalent" of a motion to
alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'! Corp., 899 F.2d 1350,
1352 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345, 348 (3d Cir. 1986)).
"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 of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Lazan.dis 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).

1

B.

Discussion

The Court denied Plaintiff in fanna paupens status based upon his annual income. The Court
has again reviewed Plaintiffs application to proceed in fanna pauperis and the instant motion for
reconsideration. Plaintiff contends that his expenses exceed his income. His application to proceed
in District Court without prepaying fees or costs states that his home was extensively damaged, has
no value, needs repairs, and is not an asset. Plaintiff indicates that he has submitted an insurance
claim for damage to his home, but has yet to receive payment based upon his claim. The Court
observes that in the application, Plaintiff inflates his monthly expenses by including the total $20,000
home repair cost as a recurring monthly expense, instead of prorating the $20,000 amount over any
time-frame. This makes it appear as if Plaintiffs monthly expenses far exceed his income when they
do not. Finally, the Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff sought review by the United States
Supreme Court in three cases: Case Nos. 16-7022, 16-7157, and 16-7372. He was denied infanna

pauperis status in each case on February 21, 2017 and February 27, 2017, and then sought
reconsideration which was denied in all three cases on April 17, 2017.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any grounds to warrant
reconsideration of the Court's April 5, 2017 Order denying his request to proceed in fanna pauperis.
Therefore, the Court will deny the motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 9)

III.

REQUEST FOR COUNSEL
Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se and has been denied leave to proceed in fanna pauperis, requests

counsel on the grounds that he is a disabled veteran senior citizen of limited income, and the "case
includes an attack on a state statute and its misuse and has many complex issues too esoteric for a
layman to contend with." (D.I. 3)

2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1 ), the Court may request an attorney to represent any
personal unable to afford counsel. Section 1915(e)(1) confers the district court with the power to
request that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in Jonna pauperis. Here, Plaintiff has been
denied in Jonna pauperis status. He does not qualify for counsel under § 1915 and, therefore, the
Court will deny the request. (D.I. 3)

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny Plaintiffs: (1) motion for

reconsideration (D.I. 9); and (2) request for counsel (D.I. 3).
A separate Order will be entered.

Dated: April 28, 2017

3