Opinion
Case No. 3:17-cv-00719-MMD-WGC
11-07-2019
BRYAN P. BONHAM, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, SR., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. DISCUSSION
On December 7, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, determined that Plaintiff would not be required to pre-pay any fees, and informed Plaintiff that he would be required to pay the full filing fee regardless of whether his action was successful. (ECF No. 3 at 4-5). The Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. (Id. at 5.)
On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order that he be required to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff argues that his application to proceed in forma pauperis should have been denied and he should not be required to pay the filing fee because his case was dismissed with prejudice and because Plaintiff may not be legally required to pay a debt with federal reserve notes as federal reserve notes are unconstitutional and void. (Id. at 1-4.)
A motion to reconsider must set forth "some valid reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision" and set "forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior decision." Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003).
The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. His arguments are frivolous and he presents no basis in law or fact for him to avoid paying the filing fee for the action he chose to bring in this Court. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) provides that a court may authorize a person to bring an action without pre-paying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) provides that such a person nevertheless will be required to pay the full amount of the filing fee and that the Court must assess and collect the fee.
II. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order requiring that Plaintiff pay the filing fee is denied.
DATED THIS 7th day of November 2019.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE