PENNANT
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied because she failed to demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, or newly discovered evidence.
The court previously denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed her case with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a motion fo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse In Forma Pauperis (Ifp) Status cases and more on FLexlaw
On May 22, 2025, I adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, denied Genise Pennant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed Pennant’s case with prejudice. Dismissal Order (Doc. 15). The Clerk entered judgment accordingly. (Doc. 17). On June 11, 2025, Pennant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal order. (Doc. 19); see FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). Pennant argues that reconsideration is warranted because the order erred in denying her motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deprived her of access to court. Id. at 1–2 (asserting that “denial of IFP status creates an undue hardship and effectively
bar[s] access to the courts due to inability to pay the filing fee”). Pennant also includes with her motion a check to cover the filing fee, funds that Pennant alleges she received from her children. (Doc. 19-1) at 2.
Pennant is not entitled to relief. In denying her motion and dismissing her case, I reached three conclusions. First, I concluded that Pennant failed to provide adequate evidence of indigency. R&R (Doc. 14) at 6–7 (listing this basis); Dismissal Order at 2 (adopting Report and Recommendation). Second, I concluded that Pennant failed to file a proper complaint. R&R at 7-8 (listing this basis); Dismissal Order at 2. Third, I concluded that Pennant's action was untimely. R&R at 8-11 (listing this basis); Dismissal Order at 2. The third basis provided the predicate for dismissing Pennant's case with prejudice. See R&R at 11; Dismissal Order at 2. Pennant's motion address only the first basis and she does not show that the other two bases especially the determination that her action is untimely are incorrect. In other words, Pennant has not carried her burden as the Rule 59(e) movant to demonstrate that the judgment is predicated on a manifest error of law or fact, or that newly discovered evidence requires a different disposition. See Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F. 3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, Pennant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 16, 2025.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge