Washington v. Miller et al

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying plaintiff's motions to reconsider the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis 18 20 21 . Plaintiff's second 22 Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANTHONY B. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. MILLER, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 18-097-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
On December 3, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
denial of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 14). The ifp motion was
denied because Plaintiff had accumulated at least three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
and he did not allege he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed
the complaint (Dkt. 9). Plaintiff now has filed three additional motions for reconsideration
of the Court’s denial of his ifp motion (Dkts. 18, 20, 21).
In his present motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff presents essentially the same
claims as were set forth in his first motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 10) plus assertions that
at his present facility, other inmates have threatened and fought him. This additional
information is not relevant, however, because the complaint only concerned incidents and
defendants at the prior facility.
ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider the denial of his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Dkts. 18, 20, 21) are DENIED. Plaintiff’s second motion for
appointment of counsel (Dkt. 22) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September 2019.

2