HAFED v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 7

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 6 Motion for Reconsideration of the Entry dated 7/30/2012 regarding filing fee. (See Order). Copy to plaintiff via U.S. Mail at both addresses. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/15/2012. (MAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SHAABAN HAFIZ AHMAD ALI SHAABAN, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )

1:12-cv-1040-JMS-MJD

Entry and Notice
The plaintiff was given a period of time in which to pay the filing fee. This
was done in the Entry issued on July 30, 2012. The plaintiff seeks reconsideration of
this order based on his contentions that it was unauthorized, that he is a victim of
government misconduct, and that it is an abuse of discretion to require him to pay
the filing fee.
I.
A.
Motions to reconsider serve a very limited purpose and are only appropriate
for those “rare” situations where the court has “patently misunderstood a party,” has
decided an issue outside the scope of adversarial presentation, has “made an error
not of reasoning but of apprehension. A further basis for a motion to reconsider would
be a controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the
issue to the Court. Such problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be
equally rare.” Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191
(7th Cir. 1990)(citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D.
99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).
B.
The plaintiff’s contentions as noted above do not support the relief he seeks.
His rule 41(g) motion for the return of personal property was filed after the
underlying criminal action was voted and he is well aware of Circuit precedent

requiring that such a motion be processed as a new civil action so as not to
circumvent provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. See United States
v. Norwood, 602 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. White, 582 F.3d 787, 806
n.3 (7th Cir. 2009); Chairez v. United States, 355 F.3d 1099, 1100 (7th Cir. 2004);
United States v. Howell, 354 F.3d 693, 695 (7th Cir. 2004). The existence of this
precedent explains why the courts order was authorized and why its issuance cannot
be sensibly understood as an abuse of discretion.
This leaves for consideration the plaintiff’s contention that, as a victim of
government misconduct, he should not be compelled to pay the filing fee. This
contention is unavailing because the law permits him an avenue to seek redress for
wrongful conduct such as he suggests in his motion for return of property, just as the
law recognizes a rainbow of civil remedies for a universe of alleged wrongs, but
imposes on him, just as with any other litigant, the obligation to pay the filing fee. If
he prevails, he may recover his costs, including the filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1920,
but that has not yet occurred.
Thus, even if the plaintiff has fairly characterized himself as a victim, he bears
the responsibility at this point to pay the filing fee.
II.
The motion to reconsider the Entry of July 30, 2012 [6], is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

08/15/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban
No.07797-028
Florence – Admax USP
Inmate Mail/Parcels
PO Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226
Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban
499-a Paragon Way
Greenfield, IN 46140

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana