Barber v. Hill et al, No. 1:2019cv00235 - Document 21 (E.D. Mo. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 20 MOTION for Reconsideration re 6 Opinion Memorandum, 7 Order of Dismissal pursuant to 28USC1915(e)(2)(B), filed by Plaintiff Joseph Barber. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 20) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from the denial of this motion for reconsideration would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/13/20. (CSG)
Download PDF
Barber v. Hill et al Doc. 21 Case: 1:19-cv-00235-HEA Doc. #: 21 Filed: 10/13/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 75 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION JOSEPH BARBER, Plaintiff, v. NINA HILL, et al., Defendants, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:19-cv-00235-HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on a letter submitted by plaintiff Joseph Barber that has been construed as a motion for reconsideration. (Docket No. 20). On May 20, 2020, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. (Docket No. 7). Plaintiff filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for failure to prosecute. (Docket No. 16). The mandate was issued on September 21, 2020. (Docket No. 17). In the instant motion, plaintiff accuses the Court of choosing sides and of dismissing his complaint solely because he is an inmate. He further complains of the Court wanting to “milk” him for the $505 appellate filing fee assessed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. To the extent that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint, the Court will decline to alter or amend its judgment. Plaintiff’s motion fails to point to any manifest errors of law or fact, or any newly discovered evidence. Instead, the motion contains only an unfounded allegation that he is being treated unfairly because of his status as an inmate. Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff objects to the assessment of the $505 appellate filing fee, the Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider those fees, as they were assessed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:19-cv-00235-HEA Doc. #: 21 Filed: 10/13/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 76 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 20) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from the denial of this motion for reconsideration would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 13th day of October, 2020 HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2