Davis v. State of Mississippi et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying 4 Motion for Reconsideration; Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/10/2017 (dtj)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION JAWAN R. DAVIS, # 171888 VERSUS PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16cv214-KS-MTP STATE OF MISSISSIPPI and FORREST COUNTY DETENTION CENTER RESPONDENTS ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COURT is pro se Petitioner Jawan R. Davis’s motion for reconsideration [4] of this Court’s Order Denying in Forma Pauperis Status [3]. Davis does not challenge the denial of pauper status or that he must pay the $5.00 filing fee. Rather, he asks the Court to “please take the $5.00 filing fee” directly out of his jail account. (Mot. for Recons.). The Court had ordered that Petitioner send the money himself, or that he have someone else do it, with “a written explanation that the money is being submitted as payment of the filing fee in this case, 2:16cv214-KS-MTP, on behalf of pro se Petitioner Jawan R. Davis.” (Order Denying IFP at 1). “Rule 54(b) authorizes a district court to reconsider and reverse its prior rulings on any interlocutory order ‘for any reason it deems sufficient.’” United States v. Renda, 709 F.3d 472, 479 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Saqui v. Pride Cent. Am., LLC, 595 F.3d 206, 210-11 (5th Cir. 2010)). This is true “even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law.” Id. Davis has not shown why he should not comport with the manner of payment ordered by the Court. The motion, therefore, will be denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pro se Petitioner Jawan R. Davis’s motion for reconsideration [4] should be, and is hereby, DENIED. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 10th day of January, 2017. UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?