United States District Court, D. New Jersey
G. SHERIDAN United States District Judge
Adrian Guille seeks relief from this Court's order
requiring him to provide a six-month prison account statement
for his in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 3).
For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in New Jersey State
Prison ("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.
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
pauperis application as he did not include a six-month
prison account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
Court administratively terminated the complaint on February
23, 2018 and instructed the Clerk of the Court to send
Plaintiff an in forma pauperis 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 in forma pauperis
March 28, 2018, Plaintiff moved to alter, amend, or
reconsider that decision. (ECF No. 3). He claims his
complaint included allegations of imminent physical danger,
entitling him to an exception to the account statement
requirement. He further claims he has been denied notary
services in NJSP, making it impossible to get an account
requests the Court permit him to proceed in forma
pauperis based on his own declaration of indigency.
Local Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion for
reargument or reconsideration of "matter[s] or
controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or
Magistrate Judge has overlooked ...." Local Civ. R.
7.1(i). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is a
matter within the Court's discretion, but it should only
be granted where such facts or legal authority were indeed
presented but overlooked. See DeLong v. Raymond Int'l
Inc., 622F.2d 1135, 1140(3dCir. 1980), overruled on
other grounds by Croker v. Boeing Co., 662 F.2d 975 (3d
Cir. 1981); see also Williams v. Sullivan, 818
F.Supp. 92, 93 (D.N.J. 1993).
prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must
show: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence that was not available
when the court... [rendered the judgment in question]; or (3)
the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice." U.S. ex rel. Shumann v.
Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir.
2014) (citing Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann,
Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
The standard of review involved in a motion for
reconsideration is high and relief is to be granted
sparingly. United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309,
314 (D.N.J. 1994). "The Court will grant a motion for
reconsideration only where its prior decision has overlooked
a factual or legal issue that may alter the disposition of
the matter. The word 'overlooked' is the operative
term in the Rule." Andreyko v. Sunrise Sr. Living,
Inc., 993 F.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).
Court has reviewed the documents submitted with Plaintiffs
complaint and has found no declaration of indigency among
them. The documents docketed along with the 44-page 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 in forma pauperis application
or affidavit of indigency to review. The Court cannot be said
to have overlooked something that was not submitted.
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
6-month account statement or to submit a more detailed
affidavit setting forth his efforts to obtain one.
the Court stated in its administrative termination order, the
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995("PLRA")
establishes certain financial requirements for prisoners who
are attempting to bring a civil action in forma
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 certified
copy of the trust fund account statement ...for the
prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the
filing of the complaint... obtained from the appropriate
official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was
confined." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added).
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"
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, ...