FORD v. SMITH et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 14 Motion for Reconsideration/Motion to Transfer Case. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/29/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
ROBERT R. FORD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES D. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-CV-4 (MTT)

ORDER
Petitioner Robert R. Ford moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing
without prejudice his motion for a writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted (Doc. 11). Doc. 14.1
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).
Ford’s handwritten motion is difficult to read, but, with effort, it is legible. See
generally Doc. 14. The Court must liberally construe the filings of Ford, who is proceeding

1

Ford titles his filing “Objection to Dismissal(s) w/out prejudice and Motion to Re-style & Re-instate as 42
USCA 1983 Action and Transfer to NDGA Atl div.” Doc. 14 at 1. The Court construes this as a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing his motion for a writ of mandamus. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed.”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). To the extent Ford seeks other relief, such as a transfer, his filing fails to state even the
barest justifications for such relief, even liberally construed, and accordingly any other relief that Ford seeks
is also DENIED.

pro se. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Mays v.
United States, 817 F.3d 728, 731 n.2 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Given Mays’s motion to vacate and
supplemental notice were filed pro se, we construe them liberally.” (citation omitted)). But
even liberally construed, the motion for reconsideration does not demonstrate any
intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence not previously available, or clear
error. It remains true that “federal district courts . . . do not have the authority to issue writs
compelling action by state officials in the performance of their duties” and that therefore
Ford “seeks relief that is not available through a petition for a writ of mandamus.“ Doc. 11
at 6 (citations omitted). The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 14) is accordingly DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of March, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-