DAKER v. OWENS et al
ORDER denying 80 Motion to Vacate. Ordered by U.S. District Judge C. Ashley Royal on 1/16/14 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
No. 5:12‐CV‐459 (CAR)
BRIAN OWENS, et al.,
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE OR AMEND
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Waseem Daker’s Motion to Vacate or Amend
6/28/13 Order [Doc. 80] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In the Motion,
Plaintiff requests this Court reconsider and vacate its Order [Doc. 69] adopting the Report
and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 14] to deny Plaintiff’s
three Motions for Preliminary Injunctions [Docs. 3,4, &8]. Because Plaintiff fails to provide
proper grounds for the Court to vacate or amend judgment, his Motion [Doc. 80] is hereby
In Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion, he seeks to have this Court reconsider its previous
Order due to the discovery new evidence, to correct clear error, to prevent manifest
injustice, and to consider facts and pleadings which Plaintiff claims this Court failed to
originally consider. Although Plaintiff’s pro se filings must be generously construed,1 his
Rule 59(e) Motion cannot “serve as a vehicle to relitigate old matters or present the case
under a new legal theory ... [or] to give the moving party another ‘bite at the apple’ by
permitting the arguing of issues and procedures that could and should have been raised
prior to judgment.”2 Rather, a motion for reconsideration “must demonstrate why the
court should reconsider its prior decision and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing
nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.”3 Reconsideration of a previous
order is an extraordinary remedy and should be employed sparingly.4 Reconsideration is
justified when (1) there has been an intervening change in the law; (2) new evidence has
been discovered that was not previously available to the parties at the time the original
order was entered; or (3) reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice.5
In his Motion, Plaintiff merely re‐asserts the same arguments and evidence this
Court previously considered in its original ruling. Plaintiff’s allegations of newly‐
discovered, the need to correct clear error of law, and the need to prevent manifest injustice
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1137 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citations omitted).
3 Fla. Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998).
4 Region 8 Forest Servs. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 805‐06 (11th Cir. 1993).
5 Richards v. United States, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1322 (M.D. Ala. 1999); McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F. Supp.
1209, 1222‐23 (M.D. Ga. 1997).
are merely conclusory statements. Plaintiff’s Motion is without merit, and reconsideration
of the Court’s previous Order would be inappropriate.
In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate or Amend Judgment
[Doc. 80] is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of January, 2014.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?