Opinion
Case No. 2:97-mc-129.
April 20, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This appeal is before the Court, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9033, on the objections of Michael E. Carrico, Gina Dougherty, Danny Bank and Patrick A.T. West to the order of civil contempt entered February 5, 1997 and the judgment entered March 12, 1997 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On May 5, 2005, this Court sustained the objections of Carrico, Dougherty and Bank, overruled the objection of West, and remanded the matter to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings. (Memorandum and Order at p. 16 (May 5, 2005)). This matter is now before the Court on West's motion to "suspend the rules" (Doc. # 13) and on West's motions for relief from judgment. (Doc. ## 14, 17).
I. West's Motion to "Suspend Rules"
West has filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, to suspend the rules relating to filing fees, bonds, and other payments. West contends that such payments would "cause an undue hardship on him and his family." Thus, it appears that West is seeking to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure specifically allows an appellant to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Moreover, Rule 24 allows an appellant to file a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis in the district court. However, Rule 24 requires the movant to attach an affidavit that, inter alia, "shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs. . . ."
West has not submitted such an affidavit in this case. In fact, West has stated that he found it impossible, as a practical matter, to provide the information requested in Form 4 under penalty of perjury. Without such an affidavit, however, this Court has no authority to permit West to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(1). This appears to be the purpose for West's Rule 2 motion.
Rule 2 provides that, "[o]n its own or a party's motion acourt of appeals may . . . suspend any provision of these rules. . . ." Fed.R.App.P. 2 (emphasis added). Thus, while Rule 2 allows for a suspension of the rules of procedure, it only empowers the Court of Appeals to grant such a request. Therefore, West's motion, filed in this Court, is without merit.
The Court notes, however, that West has also filed his motion with the Court of Appeals.
II. West's Motion for Relief from Judgment
West has also moved, pursuant to "Rule 59 or Rule 60" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for relief from judgment. In his motions for relief from judgment, however, West adds a peculiar caveat: "I have no intention of reciting provisions of the Civil Rules I feel may be appropriate or cases interpreting them. . . . If my recitation of facts is insufficient, so be it." (Motion for Relief from Judgment, at p. 2). West then proceeds to talk generally about the case, and the hardship it has caused him.
Although West filed two separate motions, one on June 6, 2005, and one on June 16, 2005, those motions appear to be identical.
West makes no effort to establish the applicability of either Rule 59 or Rule 60 to the facts of this case. Instead, West merely rehashes the arguments and facts that were before the Court prior to its May 5, 2005 decision.
In any event, West's Rule 59 motion is untimely. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b) (requiring Rule 59 motions to be filed within ten (10) days of the judgment).
Although Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this case, may be entitled to have his pleadings construed liberally, he is not relieved of the responsibility of complying with the basic rules of court. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989);Ritchie v. Holschuh, No. 2:01-cv-539, 2002 WL 484698, *3 (S.D. Ohio March 6, 2002). Moreover, courts should not assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Ashiegbu v. Purviance, 74 F. Supp.2d 740, 746 (S.D. Ohio. 1998) (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)). This Court therefore concludes that West's motion for relief from judgment is without merit.
The Court notes that, in this case, West is not a typical pro se litigant that is unaware of the rules of procedure. Instead, West is a former attorney that practiced in Federal Court.
WHEREUPON, West's motion to "suspend Rules" (Doc. # 13) is DENIED. Further, West's motions for relief from judgment (Doc. ## 14, 17) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.