Bell v. Deegan et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MARKUS ANTONIO BELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. DEEGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:24-cv-39
Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
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
Case: 1:24-cv-00039-JPH-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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
Jeffery P. Hopkins
United States District Judge
Case: 1:24-cv-00039-JPH-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>