COTTRELL et al v. RECREATION CENTER LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Motion for Reconsideration; ORDERED that Pltf Richard G. Holland shall file his renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis and an affidavit in support thereof, within 20 days, etc. (Original 9/20/2013 Letter mailed to Plaintiff per Order) Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/2/2014. (dmr)(n.m.) Modified on 4/2/2014 (dmr, ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARYANN COTTRELL, et al.,
Civ. No. 13-2847 (NLH/KMW)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
RECREATION CENTER LLC, et
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter having come before the Court by way of pro se
Plaintiff Richard G. Holland’s motion [Doc. No. 8] for
reconsideration of the Court’s August 27, 2013 Order [Doc. No.
7] denying Plaintiff Holland’s previous request to reconsider
the Court’s June 7, 2013 Order denying his application to
proceed without the prepayment of fees in this action and
directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this case; and
The Court recognizing that in this district, motions for
reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), which
provides in relevant part, that “[a] motion for reconsideration
shall be served and filed within 14 days after the entry of the
order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge or
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
Rule 7.1(i) further
provides that the party moving for reconsideration must submit a
“brief setting forth concisely the matter or controlling
decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i); and
The Court noting that a motion for reconsideration under
Rule 7.1(i) is “‘an extremely limited procedural vehicle,’ and
requests pursuant to th[is] rule are to be granted
Langan Eng’g & Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Greenwich
Ins. Co., No. 07-2983, 2008 WL 4330048, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17,
2008) (citing P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp.,
161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 353 (D.N.J. 1992)); and
The Court further noting that the purpose of a motion for
reconsideration “‘is to correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence.’”
Max’s Seafood Café
ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999) (citation omitted); and
The Court also recognizing that in seeking reconsideration,
the moving party bears a heavy burden and the motion can only be
granted if the party “shows at least one of the following
grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need
to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
The Court further noting that on September 30, 2013,
Plaintiff Holland submitted to the Clerk of Court for filing a
letter detailing his financial situation and attaching several
personal financial documents; and
The Court observing that such personal financial documents
are not properly submitted in support of an application to
proceed without the prepayment of fees and should not be filed
on the public docket; and
The Court finding the most efficient course of action at
this point is to: (1) grant Plaintiff Holland’s motion for
reconsideration; (2) permit him to file a new application to
proceed in forma pauperis and a supporting affidavit in the form
available from the Clerk of Court which accurately avers all
required financial information and does not attach any
extraneous, personal financial documents; 1 and (3) return the
The Court notes that Plaintiff Holland has previously filed
inconsistent applications and affidavits regarding his finances
before this Court and others when seeking to proceed without the
prepayment of fees. Plaintiff Holland is reminded that the
affidavit offered in support of an application to proceed in
forma pauperis is signed under the penalty of perjury. Except
in the case of changed financial circumstances, Plaintiff
Holland is on notice that his application to proceed in forma
pauperis in this case should be accurate, truthful, and
originals of the September 30, 2013 letter and the attached
financial documents to Plaintiff Holland.
Upon receipt of
Plaintiff Holland’s renewed application, the Court will make a
final determination as to his ability to proceed without the
prepayment of fees.
IT IS on this
, 2014, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff Richard G. Holland’s motion [Doc.
No. 8] for reconsideration shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED; and
it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff Richard G. Holland shall file his
renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis and an
affidavit in support thereof, within twenty days (20) of the
date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to return the originals
of Plaintiff’s September 20, 2013 letter and its attachments to
Plaintiff Holland via first-class mail.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey
consistent with any such application filed in any other case
before this Court and others.
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?