Opinion
23-3190-JWL
09-08-2023
FREDDIE L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. JARED JOHNSTONE, ET AL., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
John W. Lungstrum United States District Judge
Plaintiff Freddie L. Williams, who is currently being held at the Wyandotte County Detention Center in Kansas City, Kansas, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and a poverty affidavit. (Docs. 1 and 2.) Plaintiff is subject to the “three-strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and on August 10, 2023, the Court issued a memorandum and order concluding that Plaintiff had not presented “‘specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm,'” so he cannot proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 4, p. 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Johnson v. Little, 852 Fed.Appx. 369, 371 (10th Cir. 2021) (unpublished))). The Court granted Plaintiff until and including September 11, 2023 to submit the $402.00 filing fee and cautioned him that if he failed to submit the fee by that date, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice and without additional prior notice to him. Id. Plaintiff then filed a motion for a 60-day extension of time in which to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 5.) On August 25, 2023, the Court denied the motion, reiterating that the full filing fee is due on or before September 11, 2023. (Doc. 6.)
The matter comes now before the Court on Plaintiff's “Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, and/or for Leave to Amend the Judgment under K.S.A. 60-259(f), K.S.A. 60-252(b), K.S.A. 60-259, and K.S.A. 60-260 - relief from judgment, and K.S.A. 60-518 - the Kansas Saving Statute [sic].” (Doc. 7.) In the motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis, based on due process and several Kansas state statutes. Id. He further alleges that the denial of his previous request to proceed in forma pauperis was based on the Court's knowledge that Plaintiff was falsely accused and falsely arrested in his state-court criminal proceedings. Id. at 1-2.
The motion will be denied. Because no judgment has issued in this case, the Court liberally construes the pro se motion as a motion to reconsider the Court's previous denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief under Kansas statutes, he is advised that this is a federal court and, as such, it is not bound by Kansas state statutes. In addition, the Court assures Plaintiff that the denial of his request to proceed in forma pauperis was based solely on the determination that Plaintiff's prior federal litigation renders him subject to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and his complaint in this matter did not allege that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. (See Doc. 4.) Under the relevant statute, therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court sees no reason to reconsider its prior decision on this issue.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to reconsider (Doc. 7) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated on this 8th day of September, 2023, in Kansas City, Kansas.