AWAN v. HOLLINGSWORTH et al
Filing
11
OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 9/8/2014. (tf, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
AHMED J. AWAN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
JORDAN R. HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :
Civ. No. 14-0534 (RBK) (JS)
OPINION
ROBERT B. KUGLER, U.S.D.J.
I.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at F.C.I. Fort Dix, in Fort Dix, New
Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On April 4, 2014, the
Court administratively terminated this case as plaintiff had not paid the filing fee nor submitted a
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis was incomplete as his prisoner account statement that accompanied his application had
not been certified by the appropriate prison official. Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to
submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Presently
pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to
administratively terminate this case. (See Dkt. No. 8.) In light of this motion for
reconsideration, the Clerk will be ordered to reopen this case. For the following reasons, the
motion for reconsideration will be denied and the Clerk will be ordered to administratively
terminate this case once again.
1
II.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION
Motions filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) are governed by Local
Civil Rule 7.1(i) which allows a party to seek reconsideration by the Court of matters which the
party believes the judge has “overlooked.” See Carney v. Pennsauken Twp. Police Dep’t, No.
11-7366, 2013 WL 4501454, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2013) (citations omitted). “The standard for
reargument is high and reconsideration is to be granted only sparingly.” Yarrell v. Bartkowski,
No. 10-5337, 2012 WL 1600316, at *3 (D.N.J. May 7, 2012) (citing United States v. Jones, 158
F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994)). To be successful on a motion for reconsideration, a petitioner
has the burden to demonstrate: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café
ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); see also
Berry v. Jacobs IMC, LLC, 99 F. App’x 405, 410 (3d Cir. 2004).
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied. As the Court noted in its April 4,
2014 Memorandum Order, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is incomplete.
While it included a copy of his prisoner account statement, the account statement had not been
certified by the appropriate prison official. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 81.2(b), the
application was incomplete. In that prior Memorandum Order, the Court gave plaintiff the
opportunity to reopen his case by either paying the filing fee or submit a complete application to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, instead of seeking to reopen this action by filing a
complete in forma pauperis application, plaintiff has instead chosen to file this pending motion
for reconsideration as well as appeal the Court’s administrative termination of this case to the
2
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden for
the Court to grant his motion for reconsideration. The Court properly administratively
terminated this case as plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete.
Nevertheless, the Court will give plaintiff an additional thirty days from the date of this Opinion
and accompanying Order to either pay the filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed
in forma pauperis.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. An
appropriate order will be entered.
DATED: September 8, 2014
s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
3
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?