DAKER v. OWENS et al

Filing 404

ORDER denying 401 Motion to Vacate. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 7/17/2017 (lap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WASEEM DAKER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
BRIAN OWENS, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL No: 5:12-CV-459-CAR-MSH

ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Waseem Daker’s motion to
vacate the Court’s May 8, 2017 Order and Judgment denying Plaintiff’s numerous
motions (including various motions for preliminary injunction) and dismissing Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff has filed this motion (ECF No. 401)

pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 59(e).1
The Court recognizes three circumstances that warrant reconsideration of a prior
order under Rule 59(e): “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Daker v.
Humphrey, Civil Action No. 5:12-CV-461 (CAR), 2013 WL 1296501, at *2 n.1 (M.D.
Ga. Mar. 27, 2013) (quoting Fla. College of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter, 12 F.

1

Plaintiff has filed four notices of appeal related to the Court’s May 8, 2017 Order and
Judgment. Although the first notice of appeal was filed approximately one month before
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate, the Court concludes it has jurisdiction to address the
Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion for the reasons stated in its May 8, 2017 Order. See ECF
No. 388 at 2-4.

Supp. 2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998)). Plaintiff has not identified any intervening
change in the law or new evidence that affects his claims. The Court thus presumes that
Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration is based on his belief that there is a need
for the Court to correct clear errors or manifest injustice in this case.
As Plaintiff has been previously advised, “‘motions for reconsideration are
disfavored’” and “‘relief under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly.’” Mercer v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-324 (CAR), 2012 WL 1414321,
at *1 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 20, 2012) (quoting Krstic v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 706 F.
Supp. 2d 1271, 1282 (S.D. Fla. 2010)). Plaintiff appears to contend his motion to vacate
the Court’s May 8, 2017 Order and Judgment should be granted because he alleges
Defendants continue to forcibly shave him and have injured him during that process.
ECF No. 401 at 1. Plaintiff also suggests that venue may be appropriate as to various
Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC”) Defendants because they “were part of a
GDC inspection team that threatened Plaintiff in Reidsville” and because Plaintiff
remains “in GDC custody and subject to GDC rules, policies, and customs.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was dismissed as a sanction for his “blatant
disregard for the Court’s Orders, procedures, and resources,” and his motions for
injunctive relief were dismissed because (1) they sought the same or similar relief as had
been addressed by the Court on multiple occasions and/or (2) Plaintiff had failed to show
a likelihood of success on the merits because his Amended Complaint was dismissed.
ECF No. 388 at 17. The allegations in Plaintiff’s motion to vacate do not demonstrate
that the Court clearly erred in rendering its decision or that Plaintiff has suffered a
2

manifest injustice as a result. Nothing in the Court’s order prevents Plaintiff from filing a
new civil rights complaint regarding the conduct complained about in Plaintiff’s motion
to vacate. The Court accordingly DENIES Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 401).
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of July, 2017.

S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3