King/Morocco v. Matt Bowers Nissan

Filing 13

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Reconsider Pauper Status. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on July 9, 2019. (mp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KING/MOROCCO

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 18-8957

MATT BOWERS NISSAN

SECTION: “H”
ORDER

Before the Court is an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs, which the Court has deemed a Motion to Reconsider
Pauper Status (Doc. 12). This is the third time Plaintiff has sought permission
from the Court to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court is construing this third
application as a Motion to Reconsider its order of May 30, 2019 (Doc. 10). In
that order, this Court ruled that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis in this litigation for the reasons stated in Judge Karen Roby’s order
of October 5, 2018 (Doc. 5).
In the October 5, 2018 order, Judge Roby wrote that the plaintiff’s
application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was not properly signed.
She noted that instead of a signature the following had been handwritten:
“Status: Sovereign. I Affirm Autograph: The King/Morocco.” Based on an
attachment to the complaint, Judge Roby gleaned that “The King/Morocco”
appears to be an alias of Myron G. Simms, Jr. She ruled as follows:
At this time, the Court cannot determine whether plaintiff is
entitled to proceed without prepayment of costs because the
declaration in which the plaintiff is to declare under penalty of
perjury his income, assets, expenses, and debts is signed with only
1

a title, which may be an alias, but without any explanation of
whether it is. Without a properly signed declaration, the Court
cannot determine whether the facts asserted in the declaration are
credible. 1
A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is governed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 2 “Under Rule 54(b), ‘the trial court is
free to reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient,
even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification
of the substantive law.’” 3
In his latest application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff has again
failed to properly sign the document. Instead, the following is again
handwritten in the space for his signature: “Status: Sovereign. I Affirm
Autograph: The King/Morocco.” Plaintiff has failed to explain this and has
provided no basis for reversing the Court’s prior orders denying him
permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Pauper Status
(Doc. 12) is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 9th day of July, 2019.

1
2

3

Doc. 10 (footnote omitted).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (noting that a district court may revise at any time prior to final
judgment “any order . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties”); McClendon v. United States, 892 F.3d 775, 781
(5th Cir. 2018) (applying the Rule 54(b) standard to a motion to reconsider an interlocutory
order); Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017) (same). See also Int’l
Corrugated & Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 694 F. App’x 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2017)
(holding that a district court abused its discretion in applying the Rule 59(e) standard when
reviewing an interlocutory order pursuant to Rule 54(b)).
Austin, 864 F.3d at 336 (quoting Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d
167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990)).

2

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3