United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
RICHARD E. GARABRANDT, Plaintiff,
LINTON D. LEWIS, et al., Defendants.
Chelsey M. Vascura Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Richard E.
Garabrandt's Motion to Correct the Record and for Relief
from the Court's May 29, 2018 Order (ECF No. 12). In its
May 29 Order, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and Motion to
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (In Forma Pauperis). For
the following reasons, Plaintiffs Motion to Correct the
Record and for Relief is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
asks the Court to correct the record under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(a), which states, in relevant part, that
"[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake
arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a
judgment, order, or other part of the record."
Specifically, Plaintiff requests that "the clerical
record [be] corrected to reflect that Plaintiff filed a[n]
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. [§] 1985 not 1983 as
recorded." (Mot. at 1, ECF No. 12.) The Court
GRANTS this request and will direct the
Clerk to update the docket.
Rule 60(b), "the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (emphasis added).
Because the Court has not entered a final order in this
matter, Plaintiff cannot rely on Rule 60(b). See
Consolidation Coal Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 43
F.Supp.2d 857, 862-63 (S.D. Ohio 1999). The Court therefore
construes Plaintiffs Motion as a request for reconsideration
of an interlocutory order. The Court has discretion to
reconsider an interlocutory order at any time. See
Leelanau Wine Cellars, Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc.,
118 Fed.Appx. 942, 945-46 (6th Cir. 2004). But as explained
below, Plaintiff has not articulated a valid basis for
argues that the Court erred in requiring him to submit a copy
of his prison trust fund account statement under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(2). (See Mot. at 1-2.) He suggests
that he would only be subject to § l9l5(a)(2)'s
requirements if there was an "official state
document" in the record indicating that he is a
prisoner. (Id. at 1.) This is so, Plaintiff avers,
because "[t]he law to be applied in any case is the law
of the state." (Id.)
assertion that he only need furnish a copy of his prison
trust fund account statement if there is an "official
state document" in the record is unfounded. Section
1915(a)(2) contains no such requirement. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
assertion that "[t]he law to be applied in any case is
the law of the state" is equally unfounded. A federal
court deciding a state-law claim applies state law for all
substantive issues and federal law for procedural issues.
See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-79
(1938); Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573, 580 (6th
Cir. 2014). In cases brought under the United States
Constitution or a federal statute, a federal court will apply
only federal law. See Erie, 304 U.S. at 78
(“Except in matters governed by the Federal
Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to
be applied in any case is the law of the state."
(emphasis added)). Here, Plaintiff brings his claim under a
federal statute, so the Court applies federal law.
(See Mot. at 1 (stating that "Plaintiff filed
a[n] action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. [§] 1985").)
also argues that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over this case and that the Court therefore has no ability to
deny his request to proceed in forma pauperis. (See
Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff appears to ask that the Court throw out
the proverbial baby with the bath water, as the Court would
be required to dismiss Plaintiffs case if it lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). The Court need not further analyze the
argument's logic though. Because Plaintiff brings this
case under federal law, the Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
Plaintiff asserts that § l9l5(a)(2)'s requirements
do not apply when, as here, a plaintiff alleges that his
conviction was obtained unconstitutionally. (See
Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff is incorrect: § 1915(a)(2) does
not contain an exception for prisoners who believe that they
are wrongfully incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. §
Plaintiff has not articulated a valid basis for
reconsideration, the Court DENIES his