Williamwest v. Richardson

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DODIYI WILLIAMWEST CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-800

SHERRY RICHARDSON, ET AL. SECTION “R” (5)

ORDER

On April 5, 2023, the Court issued judgment against pro se plaintiff Dodiyi Williamwest.1 Williamwest then filed a notice of appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.2 Because an appellant must first move the district court for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the Fifth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance and remanded the matter to this Court for the limited purpose of ruling on the motion.3 The Court denied plaintiff’s motion, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith.4 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of that order and recusal of the undersigned, contending that the Court erred in considering the merits of the issues to be decided on

1 R. Doc. 135. 2 R. Doc. 144; Williamwest v. Richardson, 5th Cir. No. 23-30264, R. Doc. 77-2. 3 R. Doc. 149. 4 R. Doc. 151. appeal, and that the denial of plaintiffs motion was malicious, fraudulent, and demonstrated a material interest in the outcome of the case.5 The proper vehicle for challenging a district court’s denial of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is to file such a motion in the appellate court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Plaintiff has filed the motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Fifth Circuit, and that motion is currently pending before that court. Accordingly, this Court lacks authority to reconsider its ruling on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Lopez Dominguez v. Gulf Coast Marine & Assocs., Inc., 607 F.3d 1066, 1073-74 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting that “an effective notice of appeal strips district courts of jurisdiction to grant a[n]” analogous motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60); Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a) (permitting district court to deny motion for reconsideration when “the [district] court lacks authority to grant [the motion] because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending”). Accordingly, plaintiffs motion is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this_!0th_ day of June, 2024. bern Varnen_ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 R. Doc. 152. 6 Williamwest v. Richardson, 5th Cir. No. 23-30264, R. Doc. 90.