Barber v. Hill et al
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 20 MOTION for Reconsideration re 6 Opinion Memorandum, 7 Order of Dismissal pursuant to 28USC1915(e)(2)(B), filed by Plaintiff Joseph Barber. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 20) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from the denial of this motion for reconsideration would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/13/20. (CSG)
Case: 1:19-cv-00235-HEA Doc. #: 21 Filed: 10/13/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 75
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NINA HILL, et al.,
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a letter submitted by plaintiff Joseph Barber that
has been construed as a motion for reconsideration. (Docket No. 20). On May 20, 2020, the Court
dismissed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim.
(Docket No. 7). Plaintiff filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for failure to prosecute. (Docket No. 16). The mandate was issued
on September 21, 2020. (Docket No. 17).
In the instant motion, plaintiff accuses the Court of choosing sides and of dismissing his
complaint solely because he is an inmate. He further complains of the Court wanting to “milk”
him for the $505 appellate filing fee assessed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
To the extent that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint, the Court
will decline to alter or amend its judgment. Plaintiff’s motion fails to point to any manifest errors
of law or fact, or any newly discovered evidence. Instead, the motion contains only an unfounded
allegation that he is being treated unfairly because of his status as an inmate. Furthermore, to the
extent that plaintiff objects to the assessment of the $505 appellate filing fee, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to reconsider those fees, as they were assessed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case: 1:19-cv-00235-HEA Doc. #: 21 Filed: 10/13/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 76
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 20)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from the denial of this motion for
reconsideration would not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 13th day of October, 2020
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?