Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

William David Blick v. the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 25, 2011

WILLIAM DAVID BLICK, PETITIONER,
v.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cathy Bissoon United States Magistrate Judge

re: ECF Nos. [8] & [9].

Judge McVerry/ Magistrate Judge Bissoon

MEMORANDUM ORDER

William David Blick ("Petitioner") is a prisoner who seeks relief from his state court convictions in a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Despite the fact that he has already paid the filing fee, Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). ECF No. [8]. In addition, he seeks reconsideration of our order that denied his motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. [9].

Given that Petitioner has already paid the filing fee, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED as moot. Ping Lin v. Holder, 387 F.App'x 93, 96 (2d Cir. 2010) ("The pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot because the filing fee has already been paid."). Nor has Petitioner identified any permissible cost associated with this proceeding for which he needs partial IFP status. Walker v. People Exp. Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989).*fn1

As to Petitioner's motion for reconsideration -- "[t]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Petitioner here must establish: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion . . . or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). After considering Petitioner's arguments, Petitioner fails to meet the high standards meriting the grant of a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from this date to appeal this order to the district judge pursuant to Rule 72.C.2 of the Local Civil Rules. Failure to appeal within fourteen (14) days will constitute waiver of any appellate rights. Brightwell v. Lehman, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 635274, *5 n.7 (3d Cir. Feb. 9, 2011).

United States District Judge WILLIAM DAVID BLICK

cc: Terrence F. McVerry EQ-5104 SCI Pittsburgh Post Office Box 99991 Pittsburgh, PA 15233


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.