THOMAS v CHATMAN
ORDER DENYING 13 Motion to Alter Judgment and DENYING 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 10/8/2014. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Plaintiff LAMARCUS THOMAS, a state prisoner, initiated this pro se civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while confined at the Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia. In his pleading, Plaintiff vaguely alleged that
he had been denied medical care. Plaintiff did not provide any information about his
medical condition or explain how he had been denied care or by whom. Plaintiff also
failed to provide the Court with a certified copy of his trust account statement and to
submit his complaint on the Court’s form. Thus, in an order dated June 30, 2014, the
United States Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to file a pauper’s affidavit, certified copy
of his trust account statement, and recast complaint on the Court’s standard form.
When Plaintiff failed to respond, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show
cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to comply. Plaintiff then failed
to respond to the Show Cause Order. His Complaint was accordingly dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute on September 15, 2014.
Plaintiff has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 14) and Motion for Relief
from Judgment (Doc. 13). In both motions, Plaintiff asserts that his failure to respond
was the result of “foul play” and concludes that his responses to the Court’s orders were
likely “stolen out of [his] outgoing mail” by a mail officer or supervisor. Plaintiff
alternatively suggests that the Magistrate Judge could have been “personally involved” in
stealing his responses because his filings identified numerous “errors” the judge made in
his orders. Plaintiff further states that he has “responded back” to all other orders and
motions filed, including a motion for summary judgment. He thus seeks to have the
Court reopen this case and give him yet another opportunity to respond.
Plaintiff’s current filings, however, do not contain any of the documents initially
requested by the Court: He has still not filed a pauper’s affidavit, certified copy of his
trust account statement, or recast complaint on the Court’s standard form. The Court
likewise does not find Plaintiff’s conclusory, speculative, and self-serving allegations of
foul play to be persuasive. And, contrary to his numerous assertions, Plaintiff has not
filed a single response to any order or motion in this case.1 Even if Plaintiff filed required
responses in other cases, those filings have no bearing in the present case, where
Plaintiff failed to respond to any of the Court’s orders. A review of court records further
shows that this is not the first case Plaintiff initiated, failed to diligently prosecute, and
sought to reopen with claims of “foul play” in the handling of his prison mail: see Thomas
v. Humphrey, 5:12-cv-0359 (M.D.Ga. 2012).2
No motions were filed in this case.
In his prior case, Plaintiff failed to respond to an order to file a supplement, on two different occasions,
which resulted in dismissal of his complaint. Id. (Doc. 9, 13). Plaintiff then filed a motion for
reconsideration, suggesting possible “foul play” by prison officials. Id. (Doc. 14). The motion was
denied. Id. (Doc. 15).
Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration and/or for Relief from Judgment (Docs. 13 &
14) are accordingly DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with claims asserted in this
case, he must file a new complaint, which will be assigned a new case number. Should
Plaintiff file a new lawsuit, he must present his claims on the Court’s standard form and
also provide the Court with both a pauper’s affidavit and a certified copy of his trust
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of October, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, 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?