Stevens v. Anzalone et al
Filing
12
ORDER Denying 10 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs on Appeal filed by James Arthur Stevens. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES ARTHUR STEVENS, #776148,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:18-CV-10619
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX
v.
ANNA ANZALONE and the
39TH CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS ON APPEAL
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of
fees or costs on appeal concerning the dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. In dismissing the case, the Court concluded that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.
The Court finds no reason to reconsider that decision. A motion for reconsideration which presents
issues already ruled upon, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Hence
v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F.
Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect
by which the court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result
from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the
application. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 13, 2018
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge
I hereby certify that on July 13, 2018, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record via
electronic means and upon James Arthur Stevens via First Class mail at the address below:
James Arthur Stevens
776146
GUS HARRISON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
2727 E. BEECHER STREET
ADRIAN, MI 49221
s/J. McCoy
Case Manager
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?