Oliver v. Johnson et al
ORDER denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration of District Judge Order. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 8/7/2012. (copy mailed to plaintiff) (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER,
JOHNNY L. JOHNSON, et al,
CIVIL ACTION 11-00520-KD-B
This action is before the Court on the plaintiff Michael Darnell Oliver’s “Motion to
Warrant Consideration by the Court” which this Court construes as a motion for
reconsideration.1 (Doc. 25)
Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the
motion is DENIED.
Generally, “[a] motion to reconsider is only available when a party presents the court
with evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or
the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Summit Med. Ctr. of Ala., Inc. v. Riley, 284
F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala. 2003).
A motion for reconsideration “cannot be brought
solely to relitigate issues already raised in an earlier motion.” Harris v. Corrections Corp. of
America, 2011 WL 2672553, 1 (11th Cir. July 11, 2011) citing Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of
Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Oliver proceeds pro se in this action. Therefore, the documents are given a liberal construction
in the interest of justice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do
justice.”); Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Pro se pleadings are held to
a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally
construed.”) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1323, 127 S.Ct. 1908 (2007).
In the motion for preliminary injunction, Oliver alleged that officers at Holman
Correctional Facility had assaulted and threatened him and that an injunction should be entered
to protect him from assault.
The Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation that
Oliver’s motion should be denied as moot because Oliver had been moved to Donaldson
Oliver objected to the recommendation and argued that the injunction
should be entered to protect him from possible assault in the future.
He argued that moving him
to a different facility did not render his motion for injunctive relief moot because he is routinely
rotated among three different facilities.
After review of the report and recommendation and the objection, the Court adopted the
recommendation and the motion was denied as moot.
Now, Oliver moves the Court to
reconsider that decision asserting that the transfer to Donaldson is temporary, that he is still at
risk of being assaulted there as well as when he is moved again, and that an injunction should be
entered to protect him from assault.
Review of the motion to reconsider and the objection shows that Oliver raised the same
argument: Moving him to a different facility does not render his motion for injunctive relief
moot because he may be moved again to the facility where the assaults allegedly occurred or he
may be assaulted at the facility to which he is moved.
However, reconsideration is not
available where the arguments and issues raised have already been heard and decided by the
Court. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is due to be denied.
DONE this the 7th day of August, 2012.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?