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)

Download PDF
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

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?