The opinion of the court was delivered by: Noel L. Hillman United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon receipt of Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration ("Motion"), Docket Entry No. 16, and it appearing that:
1. On September 9, 2008, the Clerk received Plaintiff's original complaint, together with his insufficient in forma pauperis application. See Docket Entry No. 1.
2. On September 25, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and directed administrative termination of this matter, subject to reopening in the event Plaintiff timely cured the insufficiencies in his in forma pauperis application. See Docket Entry No. 2.
3. On October 22, 2008, Plaintiff submitted his amended complaint, together with another insufficient in forma pauperis application. See Docket Entry No. 3.
4. The Court consequently directed reopening of this matter and, on November 7, 2008, again denied Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, without prejudice, and administratively re-terminated this action. See Docket Entries Nos. 3 and 4.
5. On November 14, 2008, the Clerk received another in forma pauperis application from Plaintiff, together with Plaintiff's first amended complaint. See Docket Entries Nos. 5 and 6. Since Plaintiff's in forma pauperis submission was in compliance with the statutory requirements, the Court directed reopening of this matter and granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. See Docket Entries No. 7 and 9.
6. Upon screening of Plaintiff's amended complaint, the Court determined that Plaintiff's allegations stated no cognizable constitutional claim. See Docket Entry No. 8, at 8-12 (determining that Plaintiff had no Eighth Amendment or due process rights in phone or commissary privileges allegedly withheld from Plaintiff on temporary basis as a result of disciplinary proceedings). The Court, therefore, issued an order and accompanying opinion dismissing Plaintiff's claims based on loss of the aforesaid privileges; such dismissal was made with prejudice. See Docket Entry No 9. The Court, however, granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his pleadings in the event Plaintiff wished to state conditions-of-confinement claims other than those dismissed. See id.; see also Docket Entry No. 8, at 13. Specifically, the Court stated as follows:
Plaintiff's original Complaint and Amended Complaint do not allow this Court to rule out the possibility that Plaintiff may have and want to assert some constitutional claim related to conditions of his confinement other than the loss-of-privileges claim he asserts here. Accordingly, the Court will allow Plaintiff one more opportunity to amend his pleading.
Docket Entry No. 8, at 13.
7. On March 13, 2009, the Clerk received a letter from Plaintiff. See Docket Entry No. 10. Since the letter indicated that Plaintiff attempted, but did not succeed, in submitting a second amended complaint, the Court concluded that it would be in the interests of justice to allow Plaintiff an extension of time to submit his second amended complaint and, accordingly, issued an order to that effect, which was served upon Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested. See Docket Entries Nos. 11-13.
8. Since Plaintiff timely resubmitted his second amended complaint, see Docket Entry No. 14, the Court reopened this matter once again. However, the allegations stated in Plaintiff's second amended complaints mimicked the claims stated in his first amended complaint,*fn1 compare Docket Entries No. 3 and No. 14, that is, in his second amended complaint, Plaintiff restated the very same claims this Court dismissed with prejudice, i.e., Plaintiff reasserted that he was subjected to disciplinary sanctions (in the form of loss of phone and commissary privileges) in violation of Plaintiff's due process and Eighth Amendment rights, and requested compensatory damages in the amount of five million dollars. See id. The second amended complaint contained no other allegations; specifically, Plaintiff's second amended complaint contained no conditions of confinement challenges. See id.
9. Since Plaintiff's second amended complaint stated no allegations except those already dismissed (namely, Plaintiff claims asserting loss of phone or commissary privileges), the Court dismissed Plaintiff's second complaint. See Docket Entry No. 15. That dismissal was made with prejudice because Plaintiff's recital of the same meritless claims indicated that another amendment of Plaintiff's pleadings would be futile. See id. The Court's memorandum opinion and accompanying order to that effect was issued on June 24, 2009.
10. On July 6, 2009, the Clerk received Plaintiff's instant Motion.*fn2 See Docket Entry No. 16. ...