Sparkman v. Louisiana State et al

Filing 7

ORDER and Reasons denying 6 Motion to Reconsider Pauper Status. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 4/4/2017. (cml)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NAKEITH SPARKMAN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-1416 STATE OF LOUISIANA, WARDEN DARREL VANNOY SECTION “J”(4) ORDER AND REASONS The petitioner, Nakeith Sparkman, submitted a petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The certification attached to the pauper application indicated that Sparkman had an account balance of $24.89. Rec. Doc. No. 4. The Court denied the pauper application on March 6, 2017, finding that Sparkman had sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Rec. Doc. No. 5. Sparkman has filed a second pauper application which has been docketed by the Clerk of Court as a Motion to Reconsider Pauper Status (Rec. Doc. No. 6) the denial of the first application. Sparkman claims that, since the denial of his pauper application, he has learned that he no longer has sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee. He contends that the funds may have been depleted to pay for other services at the prison. Sparkman has provided no proof of his contention that the funds were used for legitimate purposes at the purposes by means of an account summary, nor has he provided a current pauper application with a certified statement of his account balances to accompany this new request for pauper status. Sparkman, therefore, has failed to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or otherwise provide the necessary information for the Court to reconsider the denial of pauper status. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Sparkman’s Motion to Reconsider Pauper Status (Rec. Doc. No. 6) is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of April, 2017. _____________________________________ KAREN WELLS ROBY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?