Moore v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/1/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MICHAEL L. MOORE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:11CV382-HEH
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Denying Motion for Reconsideration)
By Memorandum Order entered on June 14, 2011, the Court conditionally
docketed Plaintiffs Motion for Return of Seized Property as a new civil action. At that
time, the Court directed Plaintiff to return his informa pauperis affidavit and affirm his
intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to the collection of
fees form. The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with either of the above
directives within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof would result in summary
dismissal of the action.
Plaintiff did not comply with the June 14, 2011 Memorandum Order. Specifically,
Plaintiff failed to return the consent to collection of fees form. As a result, he did not
qualify for informapauperis status. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order signed on July
26, 2011, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice.
On August 11, 2011, the Court received from Plaintiff an "OBJECTION" to the July
26, 2011 Memorandum Order. (Dk. No. 7.) The Court construed this document as a Motion
to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In the
motion, Plaintiff asserted that he mailed the forms to the Court by delivering them to the
prison staff Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, however, he never provided the Court with a
consent to collection of fees form.1 Thus, the Court denied this motion (Dk. No. 7) by
Memorandum Opinion and Order on August 25, 2011. (Dk. Nos. 8, 9.)
On August 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Reconsideration (Dk. No. 10)
arguing the same points that he presented in his motion of August 11, 2011. This issue is
moot and thus the Motion for Reconsideration will be DENIED.
Plaintiff is again advised that if he wishes to proceed against the United States to
obtain his seized property, he may file a new Motion for Return of Seized Property which
will receive a new civil action number from the Court.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
&
/s/
Henry E. Hudson
Jf\
United States District Judge
Date: Afr* {. %Ok
Richmond, Virginia
1 The Court received Plaintiff s motion to proceed informa pauperis and his prisoner
trust fund account statement. (Dk. Nos. 3, 5.) At no time, however, has the Court received
Plaintiffs consent to collection of fees form. The cover letter accompanying Plaintiffs
motion to proceed infor mapauperis made clear that he only enclosed that motion and a copy
of his trust fund account. It did not indicate that the consent to collection of fees form was
also enclosed. (Dk. No. 3.) The Court again notes that Plaintiff may remedy this situation
by refiling his original motion as a new civil action, then request informa pauperis status in
the new case making sure to include the consent form along with his informa pauperis
motion and trust fund statement.
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?