­IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 

Curtis J Neeley Jr., MFA               

 

             v

CASE NO. 5:09-cv-05151

      NameMedia Inc.

      Google Inc.

 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF SUPPORTING THE OBJECTION TO JOINT MOTION TO CERTIFY PREVENTING PLAINTIFF FROM PROCEEDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

 

1.         Comes now the Plaintiff respectfully, and reminds the Court that all pro se litigants are advised the Federal Rules of CP apply even to pro se parties.  The motion to certify that the Plaintiff is proceeding in bad faith would require that the Plaintiff realized the appeal was futile yet continued simply for dilatory purposes or vexatious purposes.  The Plaintiff does not agree with the ruling and would ask that it be explained better than ‘like last time’ when the rational for denial was not ever explained in the least contrary to the intent of the Federal Rules of CP. The motions to amend that were previously denied, Docket 186, described the rational and explained ‘Dennis Factors’ as follows.

As the Court has explained in an Order entered on May 20, 2010 (docket entry #125), leave to amend may be denied in the face of "repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed."

Dennis v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc., 207 F.3d 523, 525 (8th Cir. 2000).
The Court found then, and it finds again now, that to the extent there are deficiencies in plaintiff's pleadings, he has failed to cure them by amendments previously allowed
.”

 

Reading the Order in Docket 125 and searching for more detail the Plaintiff found as follows.

 

“When the Court considers the Dennis factors, it concludes that the proposed amendment should not be allowed, and that this case should go forward on the basis of the Complaint and the amendments thereto which have already been filed…”.

 

 



1-2-3-4-5-6-7