GRAY v. LAW OFFICES OF PEGGY L BROWN PC et al

Filing 120

ORDER denying 118 Motion for Sanctions; denying 119 Motion for Reconsideration Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 03/02/2020 (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
SANDRA GRAY,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

PEGGY BROWN, et al.,

*

Defendants.

*

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-153 (CDL)

O R D E R
Defendant Peggy Brown filed a motion for sanctions pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, requesting $41,408.50 in
attorney’s fees.
Brown

sought

attorney’s
motion.

Brown Aff. ¶ 6, ECF No. 112 at 5.

relief

fees

to

that
a

pro

she
se

was

not

entitled

litigant—the

Court

to

Because
recover—

denied

her

Order Den. Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 116 (citing

Massengale v. Ray, 267 F.3d 1298, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001), which
held that the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees
to a pro se attorney litigant as a Rule 11 sanction).

Now,

Brown seeks reconsideration of that order, and she asks the
Court to award her sanctions in the form of lost income.
relief

was

not

explicitly

foreclosed

by

Massengale.

Such
See

Massengale, 267 F.3d 1298, 1303 n.2 (reserving for a future
decision the question whether a pro se litigant could “properly
seek and be awarded a Rule 11 sanction measured by the loss of

income that litigant suffered as a result of having to take time
off

work

to

respond

to

the

sanctionable

conduct”).

Brown

asserts that her lost income totals $41,408.50—the same amount
she sought as attorney’s fees.
Local Rule 7.6 provides that motions for reconsideration
shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.
7.6.

M.D. Ga. R.

Generally, such motions will only be granted if the movant

demonstrates that (1) there was an intervening development or
change in controlling law, (2) new evidence has been discovered,
or (3) the court made a clear error of law or fact.

Rhodes v.

MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1378 (M.D. Ga. 2009).

Motions

for reconsideration should not be used to relitigate old matters
or raise arguments that could have been raised in the original
motion.

Cf. Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir.

2007) (finding no error in denying Rule 59 motion to alter or
amend the judgment that was based on information that could have
been discovered before entry of judgment).

Here, Brown does not

contend that the Court made any errors of law or fact in finding
that a pro se litigant cannot recover attorney’s fees as a Rule
11

sanction.

In

fact,

the

Court’s

decision

was

based

authority that Brown cited in her original Rule 11 motion.
Brown

did

not

establish

any

other

valid

basis

reconsideration; she pointed to no new law or facts.

on

And,
for

Instead,

faced with an adverse ruling, Brown simply wants to change her

2

argument.1

That

is

not

a

valid

basis

for

reconsideration.

Accordingly, the Court denies Brown’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF

No.

119)

and

her

“Amendment”

to

her

Rule

11

sanctions

motion, which is also styled as a motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 118).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of March, 2020.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1

Brown states that she “amends” her Rule 11 motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
That rule permits amendment of a
pleading before trial with the opposing party’s written consent or the
court’s leave.
It does not apply here.
A Rule 11 motion is not a
pleading.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 (distinguishing pleadings from
motions and other papers). Brown is seeking to amend her motion after
trial and after an adverse ruling on the original motion. And, Brown
did not receive written consent of the opposing party or the Court.

3