Tims v. Golden et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 38 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 5/9/2016. copies to parties. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REBECCA TIMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAUN GOLDEN, etc., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 15-0516-WS-B
)
)
)
)
ORDER

By previous order, the Court granted in part a motion to dismiss filed by all
served defendants. (Doc. 33). As relevant here, the Court dismissed the privacy
and due process aspects of Count I of the complaint on the grounds that the
defendant officers possess qualified immunity. (Id. at 3-15, 33). In particular, the
plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing that it was clearly established at the
relevant time, by Supreme Court and/or Eleventh Circuit holdings, that the
officers’ conduct violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy
and/or Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
The plaintiff has now filed a motion to reconsider and stay the Court’s
order of dismissal. (Doc. 38). As the Court has often observed,1 the grant or
denial of such a motion is left to the discretion of the trial court and may not be
used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised previously. Instead, 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.2
1

E.g., Dyas v. City of Fairhope, 2011 WL 833972 at *1 (S.D. Ala. 2011).

2

Id.

The plaintiff does not acknowledge this standard or seek to satisfy it, and it
is clear to the Court that none of the limited grounds for reconsideration are
presented herein. Instead of attempting to show that the Court’s ruling regarding
her original complaint is incorrect, the plaintiff asks the Court to consider the
factual allegations of her amended complaint, which purport to amplify those of
the original, dismissed version. (Doc. 39). The Court, however, cannot reconsider
a ruling it has not made. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider and to stay is
denied.
DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2016.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2