Henderson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
Filing
17
ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment (Dkt. 15) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Copies of All Pleadings (Dkt. 16) is DENIED. See Order for further details. The Clerk is directed to send to Plaintiff, along with this Order, a copy of the docket sheet for this case and a copy of the docket sheet for Middle District of Florida Case No. 6:24-cv-1220-PBG-LHP. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 1/28/2025. (JWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JOSHUA DOUGLAS HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 6:24-cv-1681-JSS-RMN
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, BAMMERLIN,
STEPHEN MENSE, W. F.
WILLETS, SAINT-PREUX, M.
AYALA, CRYSTAL WILLIAMS,
and TAMMI L. GRIFFIN,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Plaintiff sued the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections and seven
officials from the Central Florida Reception Center claiming that his head was forcibly
shaved in violation of his religious beliefs. (See Dkt. 5.) On December 10, 2024, the
court dismissed his case without prejudice due to abstention under the Younger
abstention doctrine, 1 and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Dkt.
13.) Plaintiff timely moved to alter or amend the judgment and reopen this case under
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 15.) Plaintiff also seeks leave
to “amend the . . . case” and requests copies of “all filed motions with exhibits” from
1
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
this and another case. (Dkt. 16 at 1.) Upon consideration, and for the reasons outlined
below, both of Plaintiff’s motions are denied.
A. Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment
“The only grounds for granting” a motion to alter or amend a judgment under
Rule 59(e) “are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur
v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). “[R]elief under Rule 59(e) is an
extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Krstic v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
(Corp), 706 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1282 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “The decision to alter or amend
a judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” O'Neal v.
Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir. 1992).
Citing “Dkt. #4 at 1,” Plaintiff states that “[t]he court has made a mistake.”
(Dkt. 15 at 2.) Plaintiff explains that he:
did what the court has asked, by submitting forms and
financial documents. [He] [is] on close management
confinement at F.S.P. on 24[-]hour lockdown[.] [He] did
what was in [his] power[] to provide these documents in
time. See grievance attached[,] dated: 12-09-2024.
(Id.) However, the referenced docket entry, “Dkt. #4 at 1,” is not an order of the
court—it is Plaintiff’s earlier motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, in which Plaintiff noted that the court may have overlooked
one page of his financial submission.
(See Dkt. 4 at 1.)
The court previously
acknowledged that oversight while informing Plaintiff that his request to proceed in
forma pauperis nevertheless remained incomplete because he had failed to submit the
-2-
required certificate completed by an authorized prison official showing the amount of
money or securities in his prison account. (See Dkt. 8 at 2; see also Dkt. 2.) The court
therefore ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or to complete and return the
missing certificate within 21 days, which Plaintiff did not do. (Dkt. 8 at 4.)
Moreover, this case was not dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to provide certain
financial statements. Rather, the court dismissed this case without prejudice for failure
to state a claim and because the court was required to abstain from adjudicating the
claims under the Younger abstention doctrine because of Plaintiff’s related and pending
petition for a writ of mandamus. (Dkt. 13 at 10–12 (citing Henderson v. Dep’t of Corr.,
No. 372024CA0014251000MX (Fla. Leon Cnty. Ct. Sept. 3, 2024).) 2
Plaintiff
otherwise challenges the dismissal of this case by stating that he “object[s] to the
ruling,” (Dkt. 15 at 2), arguing that:
[t]he clerk or judge that filed Document No.# 13 on 12-102024[] could not have properly and justly construed my case
to not state a claim. As pro[]se, I must complain to the court
to reconsider the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with the
Exhibits from the original Complaint[] that show[] the
Plaintiff’s inmate grievances filed.
(Id. at 3.) However, as previously explained, (see Dkt. 13 at 2 n.2), the original
Complaint was stricken because Plaintiff did not use the required form, (see Dkt. 3 at
2). In any event, Plaintiff’s amended Complaint (Dkt. 5) superseded the original
Complaint. Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir.
Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus remains pending in the Second Judicial Circuit in and for
Leon County.
2
-3-
1999). Thus, the court is unable to consider the allegations contained in the original
pleading. Even if the court could consider the original Complaint, no exhibits were
attached. (See Dkt. 1.) While Plaintiff did attach exhibits of grievances to the amended
Complaint, (see Dkt. 5 at 13–22, 28), to the extent that those are the exhibits Plaintiff
references, the court has already considered them in screening Plaintiff’s claims for
frivolity under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and “a Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to
relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry of judgment.” Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (cleaned
up).
Plaintiff asserts no other basis for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing
his case without prejudice. (See Dkt. 15.) Because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate either
newly-discovered evidence or manifest error of law or fact, his Motion to Alter or
Amend a Judgment (Dkt. 15) must be denied.
B. Motion Seeking Copies of All Pleadings
Plaintiff additionally requests leave to amend the complaint, “to appeal this case
if the court does not reconsider” the dismissal, and, for purposes of appeal, copies of
“all filed motions with exhibits” from this case and a previously dismissed case,
Henderson v. Florida Department of Corrections, No. 6:24-cv-1220-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.
Jul. 8, 2024). (Dkt. 16 at 1.)
To the extent Plaintiff requests leave to amend, the request is moot because this
case is closed. Further, the court finds leave to amend at this time would be futile
given the required abstention under Younger, the inapplicability of RFRA to state
-4-
governments, and the foreclosure of his other religious freedom claims under binding
Eleventh Circuit precedent, as fully explained in the order of dismissal. (See Dkt. 13
at 7–12). See Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007); Aycox v. Kyle, No.
2:23-cv-546-SPC-NPM, 2023 WL 5275993 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023) (“The [c]ourt
would normally grant a plaintiff leave to amend, but that would be futile here. [The
plaintiff]’s claims against the judge and prosecutors are barred by . . . Younger . . . and
there is no constitutional right underpinning his claim regarding access to legal
materials.”).
Regarding Plaintiff’s request for leave to appeal, Plaintiff must comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in
order to properly initiate an appeal. To the extent that Plaintiff’s request, when read
broadly and in conjunction with his separately filed request for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, (Dkt. 15 at 3), may be construed as a request to appeal in forma
pauperis, that request is denied. Because this case was dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim and under the Younger abstention doctrine, Plaintiff’s appeal is
not taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled
to appeal as a pauper, and he must pay the full appellate filing fee. See Newcomb v.
Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 6:17-cv-2147-Orl-41DCI, 2019 WL 11505328, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
May 15, 2019) (“[A]ny appeal by [the p]etitioner would not be taken in good faith
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) because he has failed to make a
substantial showing of the deprivation of any federal constitutional right. Thus, [the
-5-
p]etitioner is not entitled to appeal as a pauper and shall pay the full appellate filing
fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).”).
Finally, Plaintiff is not entitled to complimentary copies of the documents he
seeks. However, he may purchase copies through the Clerk’s Office.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment (Dkt. 15) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Copies of All Pleadings (Dkt.16) is DENIED.
a. Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend (Dkt. 16 at 1) is DENIED as
moot.
b. Plaintiff’s request for leave to appeal (Dkt. 16 at 1), broadly construed
as a request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, is DENIED, and
Plaintiff is assessed the full appellate filing fee.
c. Plaintiff’s request for complimentary copies is DENIED. Plaintiff
may request copies by calling or writing the Clerk’s Office. A deputy
clerk can provide Plaintiff with a page count.
The cost for
photocopies is $0.50 per page. Copies will not be made or sent until
(1) payment is received with exact change and (2) a self-addressed,
stamped envelope is sent to the court.
-6-
3. The Clerk is directed to send to Plaintiff, along with this Order, a copy of the
docket sheet for this case and a copy of the docket sheet for Middle District
of Florida Case No. 6:24-cv-1220-PGB-LHP.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 28, 2025.
Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Party
-7-
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?