Moore v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 3:2011cv00382 - Document 18 (E.D. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/1/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MICHAEL L. MOORE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:11CV382-HEH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying Motion for Reconsideration) By Memorandum Order entered on June 14, 2011, the Court conditionally docketed Plaintiffs Motion for Return of Seized Property as a new civil action. At that time, the Court directed Plaintiff to return his informa pauperis affidavit and affirm his intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to the collection of fees form. The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with either of the above directives within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof would result in summary dismissal of the action. Plaintiff did not comply with the June 14, 2011 Memorandum Order. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to return the consent to collection of fees form. As a result, he did not qualify for informapauperis status. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order signed on July 26, 2011, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. On August 11, 2011, the Court received from Plaintiff an "OBJECTION" to the July 26, 2011 Memorandum Order. (Dk. No. 7.) The Court construed this document as a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In the motion, Plaintiff asserted that he mailed the forms to the Court by delivering them to the prison staff Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, however, he never provided the Court with a consent to collection of fees form.1 Thus, the Court denied this motion (Dk. No. 7) by Memorandum Opinion and Order on August 25, 2011. (Dk. Nos. 8, 9.) On August 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Reconsideration (Dk. No. 10) arguing the same points that he presented in his motion of August 11, 2011. This issue is moot and thus the Motion for Reconsideration will be DENIED. Plaintiff is again advised that if he wishes to proceed against the United States to obtain his seized property, he may file a new Motion for Return of Seized Property which will receive a new civil action number from the Court. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. & /s/ Henry E. Hudson Jf\ United States District Judge Date: Afr* {. %Ok Richmond, Virginia 1 The Court received Plaintiff s motion to proceed informa pauperis and his prisoner trust fund account statement. (Dk. Nos. 3, 5.) At no time, however, has the Court received Plaintiffs consent to collection of fees form. The cover letter accompanying Plaintiffs motion to proceed infor mapauperis made clear that he only enclosed that motion and a copy of his trust fund account. It did not indicate that the consent to collection of fees form was also enclosed. (Dk. No. 3.) The Court again notes that Plaintiff may remedy this situation by refiling his original motion as a new civil action, then request informa pauperis status in the new case making sure to include the consent form along with his informa pauperis motion and trust fund statement.

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.