Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Garabrandt v. Lewis

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

June 25, 2018

RICHARD E. GARABRANDT, Plaintiff,
v.
LINTON D. LEWIS, et al., Defendants.

          Chelsey M. Vascura Magistrate Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER

          EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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.

         I.

         A. Rule 60(a)

         Plaintiff 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.

         B. Rule 60(b)

         Under 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 reconsideration.

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Plaintiffs 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).

         Plaintiffs 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").)

         Plaintiff 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 United States.").

         Lastly, 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. § 1915(a)(2).

         Because Plaintiff has not articulated a valid basis for reconsideration, the Court DENIES his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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