Young v. Balderas, No. 2:2020cv00789 - Document 21 (D.N.M. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief District Judge William P. Johnson denying 19 MOTION for Reconsideration (meq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Young v. Balderas Doc. 21 Case 2:20-cv-00789-WJ-SMV Document 21 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO _________________________ HUGUETTE NICOLE YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:20-cv-00789-WJ-SMV HECTOR BALDERAS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and Narrow IFP Issues Ahead of an Appeal, Doc. 19, filed October 19, 2020. Plaintiff, who sought to proceed in forma pauperis, asserted that “the court has no right to request such highly sensitive financial information about litigants who are requesting fee waivers,” and disregarded the Magistrate Judge and the undersigned’s Orders to file an “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form).” Mem. Op. and Order of Dismissal, Doc. 13, filed October 13, 2020 (dismissing case without prejudice because Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file an “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)” by the October 9, 2020, deadline). Plaintiff now asks the Court reconsider “her IFP status and a narrowing and a sharpening of [some] issues [regarding the requirement to file a financial statement to support IFP status] ahead of an appeal.” Motion at 1. Plaintiff offers new evidence, her affidavit that she is receiving SNAP benefits and an incomplete form “Request to Waive Court Fees” for State of California courts, but “still refuses to submit a detailed financial statement despite the fact that it will clearly Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00789-WJ-SMV Document 21 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 2 show plaintiff qualifies for IFP status because this is not how 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) is written nor how Congress intended the law to be read.” The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (“not[ing] that a motion for reconsideration … [is an] inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion”). The Court declines to address the issues Plaintiff requests be “narrowed” “ahead of appeal” because the Court has dismissed this case and entered its Rule 58 Judgment, and because Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, see Doc. 15, filed October 15, 2020, before she filed her Motion to Reconsider. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and Narrow IFP Issues Ahead of an Appeal, Doc. 19, filed October 19, 2020, is DENIED. _______________________________________ WILLIAM P. JOHNSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
