GUILLE v. JOHNSON et al
Filing
4
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 4/3/2018. (km)
‘V
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ADRIAN GUILLE,
Civ. No. 18-1472 (PGS-TJB)
Plaintiff,
V.
OPINION
STEVEN JO1-ll’1SON. et al.,
Defendants.
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
1.
Adrian Guille seeks relief from this Court’s order requiring him to provide a six-
month prison account statement for his informa pauper/s application. (ECF No. 3). For the
following reasons, the motion is denied.
2.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in New Jersey State Prison Q’NJSP”) Trenton,
New Jersey. He submitted a complaint on January 28, 2018 raising various claims against prison
officials, including excessive force, denial of medical care, retaliation, and conditions of
confinement.
3.
Plaintiff did not pay the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee required for
filing civil rights complaints, nor did he submit a complete in forma pauper/s application as he
did not include a six-month prison account. See 28 U.S.C.
4.
§
1915(a)(2).
The Court administratively terminated the complaint on February 23, 2018 and
instructed the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff an informapauperis application. (ECF No. 2).
The Court instructed Plaintiff to pay the filing and administrative fees or submit a complete
application, including 6-month account statement, and informed Plaintiff the matter would be
reopened upon submission of the appropriate fees or complete informapauperis application.
5.
decision.
On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff moved to alter, amend, or reconsider that
physical danger, entitling
(ECF No. 3). He claims his complaint included allegations of imminent
he has been denied
him to an exception to the account statement requirement. He further claims
notary services in NJSP, making it impossible to get an account statement.
6.
his own
He requests the Court permit him to proceed informa pauperis based on
declaration of indigency.
7.
Local Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion for reargument or
s the Judge or
reconsideration of “matter[s] or controlling decisions which the party believe
Magistrate Judge has overlooked.
.
.
.“
Local Civ. R. 7.1(i). Whether to grant a motion for
granted where such
reconsideration is a matter within the Court’s discretion, but it should only be
nd Int’l h-ic.,
facts or legal authority were indeed presented but overlooked. See DeLong v. Raymo
Boeing Co., 662
622 F.2d 1135, 1140 (3d Cir. 1980), overruled on other grounds by &oker v.
1993).
F.2d 975 (3d Cir. 1981); see also Williams v. Sullivan, 818 F. Supp. 92, 93 (D.N.J.
8.
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show: “(1) an
was not
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
available when the court
...
[rendered the judgment in question]; or (3) the need to correct a clear
eneca Pharm.
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” US. ex rd. Shumann v. Astraz
Ann, Inc. v.
L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Max’s Seafood Café cx rel. Lou—
motion for
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). The standard of review involved in a
158 F.R.D.
reconsideration is high and relief is to be granted sparingly. United States v. Jones,
where its prior
309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994). “The Court will grant a motion for reconsideration only
of the matter. The
decision has overlooked a factual or legal issue that may alter the disposition
, Inc., 993 F.
word ‘overlooked’ is the operative term in the Rule.” Andreyko v. Sunrise Sr. Living
2
Supp. 2d 475, 478 (D.N.J. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Mere
disagreement with the Court’s decision is not a basis for reconsideration. United States v.
Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).
9.
The Court has reviewed the documents submitted with Plaintiff’s complaint and
has found no declaration of indigency among them. The documents docketed along with the 44page complaint are: a 1-page list of defendants; a 6-page complaint form; a 1-page table of
contents;’ a 4-page table of authorities; a 1-page certificate of service; a 5-page motion for
temporary restraining order; a 15-page memorandum of law; and a 1-page civil cover sheet.
Thus at the time the Court made its decision, there was no informapauperis application or
affidavit of indigency to review. The Court cannot be said to have overlooked something that
was not submitted.
10.
Even if Plaintiff had submitted the affidavit with his complaint, the Court still
would have administratively terminated the complaint and required him to submit a formal 6month account statement or to submit a more detailed affidavit setting forth his efforts to obtain
one.
11.
As the Court stated in its administrative termination order, the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1 995(”PLRA”) establishes certain financial requirements for prisoners who are
attempting to bring a civil action informa pauperis.
12.
The 6-month statement is a statutory requirement under the PLRA. “A prisoner
seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding without
prepayment of fees or security therefor.
.
.
shall submit a certUled copy ofthe trustfund account
The table of contents references the informapauperis application, but it does not appear to
have been submitted with the complaint. Plaintiff did include the application with his motion
papers.
3
the
statement. .for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of
.
complaint.
.
.
obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or
was confined.” 28 U.S.C.
13.
§ 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added).
The exception cited by Plaintiff for imminent danger of serious physical injury
does not apply to the account statement requirement; it only applies to the “three-strikes”
2
provision of § 1915(g). Therefore, even if the Court were to conclude Plaintiff had alleged
imminent danger of serious physical injury, which it does not based on the facts alleged in the
complaint, Plaintiff would still have to submit an account statement under the plain text of §
191 5(a)(2).
14.
Plaintiff’s allegations that he is being denied notary services are unavailing as the
account statement does not need to be notarized, just certified by the appropriate prison official.
15.
The Court will deny the motion for reconsideration, but will provide Plaintiff with
another informapauperis application. If he truly cannot obtain a certified prison account
statement from the prison, he may return the application with an affidavit attesting to that fact
under penalty of perjury.
16.
The affidavit must include specific facts as to Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain an
account statement, including specifically from whom he asked for one, on what date(s) he asked
and was denied an account statement, and what efforts he took to appeal the denials, if any. He
should include copies of his filed grievances filed as well. (ECF No. 3
¶ 3).
“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or
proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United
States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 19 15(g).
2
4
17.
An appropriate order follows
PETER G. SHERIDAN
United States District Judge
5
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?