IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 9, 2009
RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, PLAINTIFF,
R. COYLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER RE MOTION (DOC 20)
Plaintiff has filed a motion titled as a "Motion for Reconsideration or Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court on Jurisdiction." Plaintiff appears to challenge the order entered on April 15, 2008, denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
On May 7, 2008, Plaintiff lodged with the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit a petition for writ of mandamus. On June 12, 2008, an order was entered by the Ninth Circuit, finding that "the appeal and petition are so insubstantial as to not warrant further review." The appeal of the April 15, 2008, order is therefore resolved.
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff fails to articulate any legal basis on which to reverse the decision to deny him leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff makes vague arguments regarding the unfairness and unconstitutionality of his incarceration in general. Plaintiff also, as he has in many filings with this court, challenges the underling validity of his criminal conviction in 1963. Specifically, there is no showing that he should not be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(g). Plaintiff has had three or more cases dismissed on the grounds of frivolousness or failure to state a claim. Therefore, he may not proceed unless he submits the filing fee in full. There is no ground on which to reverse the ruling of April 15, 2008.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the April 15, 2008, order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.