Noble v. State Of Delaware et al

Filing 10

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

Download PDF
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

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?