Cox v Lucy

Filing 24

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration of District Judge Order as set out. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 10/10/2012. (copy mailed) (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN J. COX,
Plaintiff,
v.

)
)
)
)
)
)

WILLIAM N. LUCY,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00011-KD-M

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on pro se Defendant William N. Lucy’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 21) of the Court’s August 8, 2012 Order and Judgment adopting the
Report and Recommendation (Docs. 17, 18).1 Upon consideration and for the reasons set forth
herein, the motion is DENIED.
The decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is left to the discretion of the trial
court. Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-1024 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). “In the
interest of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration of an order is an
extraordinary remedy and is employed sparingly.” Gougler v. Sirius Prod., Inc., 370 F.Supp.2d
1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citation omitted). 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). “Motions
for reconsideration should not be used to raise legal arguments which could and should have
been made before the judgement was issued.” Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 243 F.3d
1282, 1292 (11th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
1 Defendant Lucy appealed this matter before filing the present motion; his appeal was dismissed on September 19,
2012 for failure to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 23).

1

A review of the motion to reconsider indicates that Lucy does not raise any argument
based on an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need
to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Nevertheless, giving Lucy’s motion to reconsider the
liberal construction due to pro se motions, 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”) (quotations omitted), the Court construes the motion
to reconsider as based upon the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.
In that regard, the Court has reviewed the motion to reconsider, the Order adopting the
Report and Recommendation, and the Report and Recommendation, and finds that there is no
clear error or manifest injustice resulting from its decision. As grounds, Lucy contends that the
Report and Recommendation erroneously concluded that he did “not give or show evidence of
this claim that the trial judge stated that ‘I am the law’” even though he Lucy submitted in his
Answer/Objection to the Report and Recommendation “proof certain, in the form of the record
as certified by Mobile County Court Reporter Mr. Travis Adkins.” (Doc. 21 at 1 (emphasis
omitted)). The evidence submitted with Lucy’s Objection (Doc. 15) included a transcript of a
state court hearing during which the trial judge stated: “[a]t this very moment, I am the law.”
(Doc. 15 at 15). However, this statement is not relevant to the actual findings in the Report and
Recommendation which were adopted by the undersigned. Specifically, the Court adopted the
findings of the Report and Recommendation that Lucy had not demonstrated that the Court has
jurisdiction over this case (because he did not show that all plaintiffs are diverse from all of the
defendants and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as required for diversity
jurisdiction). As such, Lucy’s present grounds to reconsider lack merit as they are unrelated to
the diversity jurisdiction requirements.
2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant William N. Lucy’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 21) of the Court’s August 8, 2012 Order and Judgment adopting the
Report and Recommendation is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of October 2012.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3