Martin v. McDaniel et al.
ORDER DENYING 61 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 5/22/2013. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
JAMES M. MARTIN,
Lieutenant JOHNNY McDANIEL ,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-192 (MTT)
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s “appeal” of this Court’s Order
(Doc. 60) denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, which the
Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 61). Pursuant to Local Rule
7.6, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.”
M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. “Reconsideration is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates (1)
that there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been
discovered which was not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due
diligence, or (3) that the court made a clear error of law.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL
339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In order to
demonstrate clear error, the party moving for reconsideration must do more than simply
restate his prior arguments, and any arguments which the party inadvertently failed to
raise earlier are deemed waived.” McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F. Supp. 1209,
1223 (M.D. Ga. 1997) (emphasis added).
Here, the Plaintiff has not met his burden. He has alleged no intervening change
in the law, has presented no new evidence not previously available to the parties, and
the Court is not persuaded its previous ruling was clearly erroneous. Contrary to the
Plaintiff’s assertions that this Court “has not contended [he] could not proceed in good
faith” nor “presented such an Order that it should not except (sic)” the Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis,1 this Court has in fact entered such an Order
(Doc. 60) certifying that an appeal in forma pauperis cannot be taken in good faith.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of May, 2013.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Doc. 61 at 1-2.
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?