Clayton Albers v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I

Case: 13-12821 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12821
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00164-JSM-PRL
CLAYTON ALBERS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN – USP I,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 14, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12821 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 2 of 4
Clayton Albers, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of
his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s dismissal, without prejudice,
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In Albers’ § 2241
petition, he stated that he was indigent and requested the waiver of all fees with the
petition, and all other considerations afforded to pro se petitioners. He requested
his letter be accepted in lieu of a standard § 2241 form. After over 30 days had
passed since Albers’ filing, the district court dismissed his petition without
prejudice on the basis that he failed to pay the filing fee or request to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) within 30 days of the filing of his petition, as required by the
court’s local rule. Albers filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his
petition, claiming his statement of indigency in his petition should have been
accepted in lieu of a formal application to proceed IFP. The district court denied
the motion for reconsideration.
Albers contends the certification he was indigent in his original § 2241
petition sufficiently constituted a request to proceed IFP. He asserts he was never
sent any forms, as required by the local rules. Thus, he contends his petition was
erroneously dismissed.
Rule 60(b) allows a party to move a court for relief from a final judgment
due to, in relevant part, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or
any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6). Generally,
2
Case: 13-12821 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 3 of 4
in reviewing an appeal of an order denying a motion for reconsideration, we may
only consider the denial of relief of the motion for reconsideration, not the
underlying judgment itself. Rice v. Ford Motor Co., 88 F.3d 914, 918-19 (11th
Cir. 1996).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Albers’ motion for
reconsideration. See Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)
(stating we review a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for
abuse of discretion). The record shows Albers had neither paid the required filing
fee nor filed an application to proceed IFP with the district court within 30 days of
filing his petition, in violation of the court’s local rules. M.D. Fla. Local Rule
1.03(e) (stating a prisoner case “will be subject to dismissal by the Court, sua
sponte, if the filing fee is not paid or if the application [to proceed IFP] is not filed
within 30 days of the commencement of the action”). Albers has not identified any
error under Rule 60(b) that justified relief such that the district court was required
to vacate its initial order. See Solaroll Shade & Shutter Corp., Inc. v. Bio-Energy
Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir. 1986) (“To demonstrate an abuse of
discretion” in denying a Rule 60(b) motion, a movant “must prove some
justification for relief . . . [and] cannot prevail simply because the district court
properly could have vacated its order).” Although Albers argues the court should
have accepted his statement that he was indigent in lieu of a formal application to
3
Case: 13-12821 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 4 of 4
proceed IFP, he has not shown how the court’s refusal to do so entitled to him
relief under Rule 60(b). Similarly, there is no authority that supports his
contention that the court was required to send him the requisite application forms
when it declined to accept his letter as a substitute for a formal application.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4