Herman v. Ferriter et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 14 , 15 Motions of Objections. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 4/12/2012. Mailed to Herman. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

J:IL.~D
APri 13

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA';/iTRICI\ 1:. n..
DEI>fliY

HELENA DIVISION

LYLE HERMAN,

lOt}

~<.i".".y

CtERI(,

• CLI:~I\
4fisS0Vi::4

Cause No. CV-12-00017-H-DLC-RKS

Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.

MIKE FERRITER, et aI.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Lyle Herman has filed a "Motion of Objections to Magistrate Keith
Strong's Order of April 2, 2012 of denial as moot" (Doc. No. 14) and a "Motion of
Objection to District Judge Dana Christensen's Order of April 3, 2012." (Doc. No.
15).

To the extent these motions could be construed as motions for
reconsideration, they are denied. Plaintiff Herman does not meet the standards of
Local Rule 7.3. He has not filed a motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration, and he cannot establish that the facts and applicable law are
materially different from the facts and law presented to the Court before the initial
rulings or that new facts or law have emerged since the Orders were issued.
Mr. Herman contends he is not bound to follow Local Rule 7.3 due to a lack

of legal knowledge in a civil action. But, a pro se litigant is required to "abide by
the rules of the court in which he litigates." Carter v. C.I.R., 784 F.2d 1006, 1008
(9th Cir. 1986).
Finally, Mr. Herman presented no new argument to convince the Court that
Magistrate Judge Strong's ruling was incorrect. Although he has presented a
March 30, 2012 letter from Mike Ferriter, Director of the Montana Department of
Corrections, that letter does not establish that the denial of his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis was inappropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Herman's motions of
objections (Doc. Nos. 14, 15) are denied.
DATED this

~day of April, 20

Page 2 of 2