Davis v. United States District Court for the District of Kansas

Filing 13

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 11 for reconsideration is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 2/8/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Anthony L. Davis by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANTHONY LEROY DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 11-3135-SAC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
DISTRICT OF KANSAS,
Defendant.

O R D E R
Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated in a state correctional
facility in Kansas, initiated this action with a pro se pleading
titled as a “COMPLAINT ON AN ACCOUNT.”

The court dismissed the

action without prejudice on November 1, 2011.
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
The date on plaintiff’s motion is November 7, 2011, and plaintiff
certifies he submitted it to prison officials for mailing the same
date.

Plaintiff’s motion is thereby considered as a timely filed

motion to alter and amend the judgment entered in this matter. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
In the instant matter, the court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice, based upon plaintiff’s failure to prepay the
$350.00 district court filing fee, and the court’s finding that
plaintiff made no showing to avoid the “3-strike” provision in 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) that barred plaintiff from proceeding in forma
pauperis in this civil action.

In his motion for reconsideration,

plaintiff reiterates his complaints about both the court’s handling
of the filing fees in his previous cases, and the court’s counting
of prior actions as “strikes” under § 1915(g).

Plaintiff also

reasserts claims that the court’s application of § 1915(g) violates
his constitutional rights.
"Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider [under Rule 59(e)]
include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new
evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice."

Servants of Paraclete v.

Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.2000).

A party may not use a

Rule 59(e) motion "to revisit issues already addressed or advance
arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing."

Id.

Finding no showing that the court has misapprehended the facts,
plaintiff’s position, or the controlling law, the court denies
plaintiff’s motion.
IT

IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration (Doc. 11) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 8th day of February 2012 at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

2