Bunch v. Muskogee Housing Authority et al

Filing 6

ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration ( 5 Motion to Reconsider) (lal, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Gloria A. Bunch and family,
Plaintiff(s),
v.

Case No. 13-CIV-212-RAW

Muskogee Housing Authority, et al.,
Defendant(s).
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 5]. Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Motion for Appointment of
counsel [Docket Nos. 2 and 3]. The court denied the application for appointment of counsel
and granted in part the motion for IFP [Docket No. 4]. Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider
both requests.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. Thus, the court construes liberally the
pleadings of the litigant. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10 th Cir. 1991).
Motion for IFP
The court “has discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a civil litigant permission
to proceed IFP.” Brewer v. City of Overland Park Police Dept., 24 Fed.Appx. 977, 979 (10th
Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)).
General factors that can be considered when deciding whether to grant
IFP status include: whether the complaint is frivolous or malicious;
whether the case concerns a prisoner, with special concern placed on
prisoner complaints; and the nature of the mandatory and discretionary

demands on the applicant’s financial resources.
Id. (citations omitted). This court considered the foregoing factors in deciding whether to
grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.

The court has also considered Plaintiff’s

discretionary expenses. (“that where discretionary income is sufficient to pay the filing fee
even in a case where total expenses exceed total income, denial of an in forma pauperis
motion is appropriate.” Scherer v. Merck & Co., 2006 WL 2524149 (D.Kan. Aug. 24,
2006)).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration states various expenses not previously provided
to the court, such as monthly rental for storage facilities for her furniture and costs to move
items from one storage facility to another.

The court again finds that Plaintiff has

discretionary income with which to pay the filing fee in this matter in monthly installments.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider regarding IFP is denied.
The court again cautions Plaintiff that failure to pay the filing fee as directed could
result in this matter being dismissed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Application for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff requests the court reconsider her application for appointment of counsel,
stating that she has contacted “an entire two pages of attorneys given to me by OK Disability
Law Center.” For the same reasons as stated in the court’s order dated May 20, 2013,
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider regarding appointment of counsel is denied.

2

Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 5] is denied.
Dated this 19th day of June, 2013.

Dated this 19th day of June, 2013.

J4h4i0

3