Merilien v. Hart et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 1/21/2009. (nbp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION JEAN JOCELYN MERILIEN, : : Plaintiff : : VS. : : Warden DARRELL J. HART, Mail : Officer ANDERSON, Officers DAMITA : FLEMING and THOMPSON, and Nurse : SELESKA, : Defendants : _____________________________________ NO. 7:08-cv-149 (HL) ORDER On November 25, 2008, this Court entered an order finding that pro se plaintiff JEAN JOCELYN MERILIEN had "three strikes" under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). The Court nevertheless found that plaintiff's claims with respect to Warden Darrell Hart, Officer Damita Fleming, and Officer Thompson satisfied the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception and these claims were permitted to go forward. Because the claims against Nurse Seleska and Mail Room Ms. Anderson did not satisfy the exception, such claims and defendants were dismissed. Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to reconsider (Tab # 9). In his motion, plaintiff claims that on December 18, 2008, he ordered prison officials to withdraw the full filing fee of $350.00 from his prison account. He requests that this Court reinstate defendants Nurse Seleska and Mail Room Ms. Anderson. The Court has yet to receive $350.00 fee. Moreover, as the Eleventh Circuit held in Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002), a prisoner cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status; he must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's motion to reconsider is DENIED. If plaintiff wishes to proceed against Nurse Seleska and Mail Room Ms. Anderson, he must file a separate lawsuit against them, accompanied by the $350.00 filing fee. SO ORDERED, this 21st day of January, 2009. s/ Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cr 2

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?