Markus Antonio Bell v. Michael J. Deegan, et al.

S.D. Ohio

Markus Antonio Bell v. Michael J. Deegan, et al.

DecidedJanuary 20, 2026

Docket1:24-cv-00039

StatusUnknown

This text of Markus Antonio Bell v. Michael J. Deegan, et al. (Markus Antonio Bell v. Michael J. Deegan, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Markus Antonio Bell v. Michael J. Deegan, et al., (S.D. Ohio 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

MARKUS ANTONIO BELL, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:24-cv-39 : v. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : MICHAEL J. DEEGAN, et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER

This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff Markus Antonio Bell’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 14) (the “Motion”). In his Motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 12), issued February 19, 2025, wherein this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Orders instructing him to pay the $402.00 filing fee or file a properly supported motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff provides a financial statement dated March 18, 2025. Doc, 14, PageID 90. To be entitled to reconsideration, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a manifest error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence which was not available previously to the parties; or (3) intervening authority. Meekison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)). Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a manifest error of law, nor shown any intervening authority, so the Court presumes that he is seeking to proceed on the basis that he has newly discovered evidence. The financial statement that he provides, however, does not qualify as newly discovered evidence because Plaintiff has not shown that this statement was not previously available or that he “exercised due diligence in obtaining the information.” Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 149 F.3d 413, 423 (6th Cir. 1998). Instead, he vaguely theorizes that correctional officers were conspiring against him and intentionally preventing him from obtaining a proper financial statement. The record shows that Plaintiff had more than a year to pay the filing fee or file a properly supported motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He did not do so. For these reasons, Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration. His Motion (Doc. 14) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. January 20, 2026 (Pagteg | Kobra fe kins United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

MARKUS ANTONIO BELL, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:24-cv-39 : v. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : MICHAEL J. DEEGAN, et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER

This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff Markus Antonio Bell’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 14) (the “Motion”). In his Motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 12), issued February 19, 2025, wherein this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Orders instructing him to pay the $402.00 filing fee or file a properly supported motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff provides a financial statement dated March 18, 2025. Doc, 14, PageID 90. To be entitled to reconsideration, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a manifest error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence which was not available previously to the parties; or (3) intervening authority. Meekison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)). Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a manifest error of law, nor shown any intervening authority, so the Court presumes that he is seeking to proceed on the basis that he has newly discovered evidence. The financial statement that he provides, however, does not qualify as newly discovered evidence because Plaintiff has not shown that this statement was not previously available or that he “exercised due diligence in obtaining the information.” Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 149 F.3d 413, 423 (6th Cir. 1998). Instead, he vaguely theorizes that correctional officers were conspiring against him and intentionally preventing him from obtaining a proper financial statement. The record shows that Plaintiff had more than a year to pay the filing fee or file a properly supported motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He did not do so. For these reasons, Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration. His Motion (Doc. 14) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. January 20, 2026 (Pagteg | Kobra fe kins United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Markus Antonio Bell v. Michael J. Deegan, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markus-antonio-bell-v-michael-j-deegan-et-al-ohsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack