UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ERIC RICHMOND, Appellant, 5 : 16 Civ. 0422 (BMC) -against- 16 Civ. 0424 (BMC) P.B. #7, LLC, Appellee ——X MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF INFORMA PAUPERIS MOTION AND DISMISSAL OF APPEALS TITLE Vil. JUDGMENT > Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment STANDARD OF REVIEW IN 2ND CIRCUIT The Second Circuit has held that “{tJhe major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) #1 - CLEAR ERROR FOR COURTS TO ACT IN CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT 1. The Supreme Court's decisions in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez (90-1846), 504 U.S. 25 (1992) require that any court dismissing as “it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact” actually articulate inarguable legal theory or fanciful or delusional facts. By failing to do so this court and the lower court are in contempt of Supreme Court rulings.NEITZKE DISMISSAL REQUIRES LEGAL AND FACTUAL REVIEW 2. Neitzke in conjunction with Denton v. Hernandez (90-1846), 504 U.S. 25 (1992) require analysis of specific items found to be frivolous. 3. Categorization by the lower court as frivolous or dismissal by this court absent any review based on 1915(e) that citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) was incorrect. DISMISSAL FOR LEGAL FRIVOLOUSNESS UNWARRANTED Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 4. Neitzke finds something is not frivolous just by failing to state a claim and that frivolous is when “[none] of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.” 5. __Neitzke continues with “By logical extension, a complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. As the Courts of Appeals have recognized, § 1915(d)'s term “frivolous,” when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” 6. Asneither the lower court nor this court addressed any legal argument and neither the lower court nor this court addressed the factual allegations, it cannot be shown that the court did any review, let alone the de minimus review, of the appeal. DISMISSAL FOR FACTUAL FRIVOLOUSNESS UNWARRANTED Denton v. Hernandez (90-1846), 504 U.S. 25 (1992). 7. Denton follows up on Neitzke: “The issues in this case are the appropriate inquiry for determining when an in forma pauperis litigant's factual allegations justify a 1915(d) dismissal for frivolousness, and the proper standard of appellate review of such a dismissal.”8. Denton states court dismissal as frivolous is warranted “... if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.” It should go without saying that the court should identify what makes an appeal frivolous or malicious. That de minimus review is not present. Denton also states: ‘As we stated in Neitzke, a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless," 490 U. S., at 327, a category encompassing allegations that are “fanciful,” id., at 325, “fantastic,” id., at 328, and “delusional,” ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiffs allegations unlikely. Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age old insight that many allegations might be "strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction.” Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan & W. Pratt eds. 1977). 9. _Asthe court did not address any facts in the appeal, it is clear no analysis of what were fanciful or delusional facts occurred. INEVITABLE SANCTIONS 40. _ As this court has recently threatened appellant with sanctions for having the temerity to point out errors by this court that this court has refused to address and Appellant has pointed out even more errors by this court and the lower court and due process is worth fighting for, Appellant knows "Well, that’s a a whippin | gotta take'.” * WANTED Richard PryorCONCLUSION: Itis clear error and manifest injustice that neither this court nor the lower court did the required analysis of legal arguments and alleged facts required under the ‘Supreme Court cases Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) and its Supreme Court sequel Denton v. Hernandez (90-1846), 504 U.S. 25 (1992) Itis clear that the Supreme Court's citing of Lord Byron from Don Juan illustrates how basic this is to due process, faimess and the American way in that its is obvious with or without caselaw, constitution or statute. WHEREFORE: Movant respectfully requests that the court grant the instant motion to reconsider the dismissal of appeals based on denial of in forma pauperis status by the lower court and this court in contempt of Supreme Court rulings in that the decisions are absent articulation of what was inarguable legal theory or fanciful or delusional facts in the lower court or this court and for such other and ad 2 it deems just and proper. Dated: March 18, 2016 ERIC'RICHMOND Brooklyn, NY APPELLANT, PRO SE 2107 Regent Place Brooklyn, NY 11226 (646) 256-9613, gowanusx@gmail.com