THORNTON v. PRATT et al

Filing 20

ENTRY REGARDING SELECTED MATTERS - The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Mr. Thornton's motions 7 and 8 , consistent with the following: 1) The order requiring installment payment of the filing fee is vacated and plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis; 2) Mr. Thornton shall have through 5/1/2013, in which to demonstrate how the Southern District of Indiana could be a permissible venue for this action; and 3) The motions to vacate and reconsider are in all other respects DENIED. Copy mailed to pltf. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/15/2013. **Entry emailed to USCA** (JLM) Modified on 4/15/2013 (JLM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
RICHARD B. THORNTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN G. HEYBURN, II, JUDGES OF WESTERN
DISTRICT and JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
6TH CIRCUIT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:13-cv-008-TWP-TAB
)
)
)
)
)
)

ENTRY REGARDING SELECTED MATTERS
I.
Plaintiff Richard B. Thornton seeks reconsideration of various rulings made in this case.
“A motion to reconsider asks that a decision be reexamined in light of additional legal
arguments, a change of law, or an argument that was overlooked earlier . . . .” Patel v. Gonzales
442 F.3d 1011, 1015-1016 (7th Cir. 2006).
II.
A.

Motion to Set Aside, Vacate Orders (Dkt. 7)
On January 29, 2013, Mr. Thornton filed a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate this Court’s

Entry dated January 17, 2013 (Dkt. 7). Mr. Thornton was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis to the extent that he was permitted to pay the filing fee in two equal installments of
$175.00, the first to be paid by February 21, 2013, and the second to be paid by April 2, 2013.
Mr. Thornton has not complied with theses directions; the entire filing fee remains due.
Mr. Thornton first suggests that the Court acted beyond its authority in directing that the
filing fee be paid in installments. This is not the case. The Court is authorized pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a) to take into account a litigant’s financial circumstances and to fashion an

appropriate order. That is what occurred here and there was no error in it. See, e.g., White ex
rel. Diggs v. Barhnart, 2002 WL 1760980 (M.D.N.C. 2002).
Mr. Thornton next refers to his disability income having been interrupted and says his
income is now zero. That circumstance certainly impacts on his ability to meet a variety of
financial obligations. Accordingly, the Court will vacate the order to make installment payment
and will allow Mr. Thornton to proceed without paying a filing fee. As such, the Motion to set
aside (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED in that the Court has reconsidered installment payment of the filing fee.
B.

Motion to Set Aside, Vacate, Quash, Strike From the Record Illegal Entry and
Orders (Dkt. 8)
Mr. Thornton has filed a Motion to Set Aside, Vacate and Quash the Entry issued on

January 23, 2013 (Dkt. 8). In Part II of the Court’s Entry dated January 23, 2013 (Dkt. 4), Mr.
Thornton was given a period of time in which to show cause why the action should not be
transferred to the District wherein it appears that proper venue exists. He has responded with a
series of assertions highlighting his connection to Indiana, but has not included any analysis
based on the applicable statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Nonetheless, it is the statute to which the Court and parties to a lawsuit must refer in
determining whether a specific venue is proper. The applicable statute was identified in Part II
of the Entry issued on January 23, 2013.
The content of the statute has not changed since then. The statute provides:
A civil action may be brought in-(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of
the action is situated; or

2

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided
in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Mr. Thornton’s request that the Court base its venue determination on factors other than
the foregoing is DENIED. The Court however, will accord Mr. Thornton additional time, to
show how the Southern District of Indiana could be a permissible venue for this action.
Therefore, the Motion to Set Aside, Vacate, Quash and Strike from the Record Illegal Entry and
Orders (Dkt. 8) is DENIED at this time, however Mr. Thornton is granted additional time to
submit authority.
C.

Judge as Defendant
Mr. Thornton’s filings are permeated with references to the undersigned as a defendant.

However, this is no longer the case. The Court has addressed in a separate ruling Mr. Thornton’s
request for the recusal of the undersigned. It does not advance litigation to replace reasoned
statements and arguments with unsupported accusations of misconduct.
I. CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion in Part II of this Entry, therefore, the Court GRANTS in part
and DENIES in part Mr. Thornton’s motions (Dkt. 7, and 8), consistent with the following:
1.

The order requiring installment payment of the filing fee is vacated and Plaintiff

may proceed in forma pauperis;
2.

Mr. Thornton shall have through May 1, 2013, in which to demonstrate how the

Southern District of Indiana could be a permissible venue for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b).
3.

The motions to vacate and reconsider are in all other respects DENIED.

3

SO ORDERED.

04/15/2013
Date: _______________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

DISTRIBUTION:
Richard B. Thornton
P. O. Box 144
Mauchport, Indiana 47142

4