LOTT et al v. FYE et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; DENYING 11 Motion to Certify Class; DENYING 13 Motion Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 8/19/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

MACK HENRY LOTT, et al.,

:
:
Plaintiffs
:
:
VS.
:
:
DR. CHIQUITA FYE, et al.,
:
:
Defendants
:
_________________________________:

NO. 5:14-CV-271 (MTT)
ORDER

Plaintiff MACK HENRY LOTT, an inmate at Macon State Prison (“MSP”), filed a
pro se civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself and ten other
inmates on July 21, 2014. After conducting a preliminary review, the Court rejected
Plaintiff’s attempt to represent the interests of other prisoners. The Court also denied
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, because Plaintiff, while incarcerated, had
incurred three “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and did not allege that he
presently was in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The Complaint was thus

dismissed without prejudice on August 1, 2014.
Plaintiff has now filed the following: (1) an Affidavit from a fellow inmate (Doc. 9);
(2) a “Motion Appointment of Counsel Assistance” (Doc. 10); (3) a “Motion for Class
Certification” (Doc. 11); (4) a notice of “Imminent Danger” (Doc. 12); (5) a “Motion for
Recon[si]deration” (Doc. 13); and (6) Exhibits addressing exhaustion of administrative
remedies (Doc. 14).

As in his original complaint, Plaintiff in his motion for reconsideration complains
about the medical care he is receiving at MSP. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that two
nurse practitioners prescribed Ultram for Plaintiff’s back pain, but Defendant Dr. Chiquita
Fye discontinued the drug. Plaintiff states that he has suffered pain as a result of not
receiving the Ultram. He also states that he “may need hip replacement due to its [sic]
15 year[s] since the operation and the life of a hip replacement is [15 years].”
Plaintiff provides no basis for this Court to reconsider its dismissal of this case.
He continues to disagree with the medical care he is receiving from Dr. Fye. As noted in
the Court’s prior Order, however, such disagreement with treatment actually received
does not support a valid Eighth Amendment claim. Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegation that he
is suffering back pain does not support his being in imminent danger of serious physical
injury. Plaintiff’s new allegation that he “may need a hip replacement” does not support
either the underlying medical claim or Plaintiff being in imminent danger.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s other pending motions are likewise DENIED for the reasons stated in this
Court’s prior Order and/or as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of AUGUST, 2014.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cr

-2-