STUART v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 71

ORDER re 68 MOTION (Letter construed as) for Reconsideration of 66 Order filed by WILLIE MAE STUART is DENED. All future filings regarding Plaintiff's appeal should be filed with USCA. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 4/4/2012. (jws)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
WILLIE MAE STUART,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CASE NO.: 4:10-CV-96-SPM/GRJ

CARBONELLY, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court upon a letter that Plaintiff sent to the
Court (doc. 68), which has been construed as a motion for reconsideration of the
decision denying the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and to appoint
counsel. Additionally, Plaintiff has requested clarification on the status of her case.
On November 3, 2011, the magistrate judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (doc. 47) regarding Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction (doc. 45). Because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter, and therefore the
magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss. This Court agreed
and on January 12, 2012, adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted
the motion to dismiss (doc. 49). Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal to
have her case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The notice of appeal included a request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and
a motion to appoint counsel (docs. 56 and 61). As previously stated, because

Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing an action in the
district court, this Court does not have jurisdiction and cannot hear this case. This
is not optional. Therefore, in accordance with Title 28, Untied States Code, Section
1915(a)(3), the Court certified that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith and
denied the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and the motion to appoint
counsel. The Court finds no reason to change its previous ruling. Accordingly, it
is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s letter to the Court which has
been construed as a motion for reconsideration (doc. 68) is denied. All future
filings regarding Plaintiff’s appeal should be filed with the United States District
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2012.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
Senior United States District Judge

-2-