TAYLOR v. NELSON ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CHARLES MACK TAYLOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-01332-JPH-TAB ) SHANE NELSON, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER DENYING SECOND EMERGENCY MOTION TO RECONSIDER CLOSED JUDGMENT Plaintiff Charles Taylor filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. The Court dismissed this action without prejudice on September 16, 2022, for Mr. Taylor's failure to renew his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by providing his trust account statement, or in the alternative to pay the $402.00 filing fee. Dkt. 9; dkt. 10. Mr. Taylor now seeks reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of this action for a second time. Like his first motion, Mr. Taylor appears to argue that he completed a request for interview form that he submitted to his caseworker to request a copy of his trust fund account. Dkt. 13 at 1. He believes this request for interview form, which he submitted to the Court at docket 7, is a certified statement because it included a facility official's signature and has a dollar amount of $31.01 written in the action section of the form. Id. The form does not explain what the monetary total represents or how it was calculated. Id. And as the Court previously explained, this form is not a certified copy of the transactions associated with Mr. Taylor's institution trust account for the 6-month period preceding the filing of this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Mr. Taylor was permitted multiple opportunities to correct his deficient motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis so that the Court could properly consider his eligibility to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, but he did not do so in the extended time provided. Dkt. 5; dkt. 8. The Court has given Mr. Taylor's requests to reconsider due consideration. Motions to reconsider “will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovery evidence precluded entry of judgment." Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Mr. Taylor fails to establish either of those circumstances. Therefore, his second motion for reconsideration, dkt. [13], is DENIED. The Court has instructed Mr. Taylor that if he wishes to pursue the claims alleged in his complaint, he may initiate a new civil action. This action remains closed. Any future motions seeking relief on the same basis will be summarily denied. SO ORDERED. Date: 12/9/2022 Slam ruck ltanbove James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Distribution: Southern District of Indiana CHARLES MACK TAYLOR 994511 NEW CASTLE - CF NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels 1000 Van Nuys Road NEW CASTLE, IN 47362