Daniels v. Upton et al

Filing 84

ORDER denying 76 Motion to Vacate, Motion for Relief from Judgment of Order Denying Intervention re 46 Order. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/07/2018. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

XAVIER DANIELS,

Plaintiff,
CV 616-094
V.

STEVE UPTON, et al..
Defendants.

ORDER

Before

the

reconsideration.

Court

(Doc.

is

76.)

Waseem

Mr.

Dakar's

Daker

asks

motion

this

Court

for

to

reconsider its order, and the corresponding judgment, dismissing

the underlying case, dismissing as moot all pending motions, and

denying the underlying plaintiff the right to proceed in forma
pauperis (''IFP") on appeal.

(Docs. 70, 71.)

The order Mr. Daker

asks this Court reconsider, however, does not directly concern

Mr. Daker.^

^

While

Additionally, this Court has previously denied Mr.

the

Court's

order

technically denied

the

last of Mr.

Dakar's three motions to proceed IFF on appeal (doc. 64) when it
dismissed as moot all pending motions, the Court notes that it had
already denied Mr. Daker's first two motions to proceed IFP on appeal
(docs. 54, 61) in a previous order (doc. 66).

Mr. Daker, moreover,

does not appear to challenge the Court's denial of his third motion to
proceed IFP in his motion for reconsideration. Nevertheless, to the
extent that Mr. Daker's motion for reconsideration relates to this
Court's denial of his third motion to proceed IFP, for the reasons

stated in the Court's previous order (doc. 66), the Court DENIES Mr.
Dakar's motion.

Daker the right to intervene in this case.^
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Daker's motion.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

(Docs. 41, 46.)
(Doc. 76.)
day of May,

2018.

J. RA^IDiL'HALL, C^IEF JUDGE

UNITED States district court
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

^ The Court notes that while Mr. Daker has appealed the denial of his
motion to intervene, ^Mi]f intervention is denied, an appeal from that

denial does not prevent the proceedings from going forward in the
district court."

De Mesa v. Castro, 844 F.2d 642, 645 (9th Cir. 1988).