Waters v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying 37 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 10/4/2011. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
WILLIE WATERS,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
WILLIAM DANFORTH, et al.;
:
:
Defendant.
:
___________________________________

Civil Case No.
7:10-cv-105 (HL)

ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendants Danforth, Philbin, and Orr’s
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 37). After review, the Court finds that the
Motion should be denied.
In this case, the Court has previously ruled on a Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant Conley and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants
Danforth, Philbin, and Orr. The Motion for Summary Judgment was granted
because the Court determined that Plaintiff could not establish the objective
component of a deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Conley.
However, the Motion to Dismiss was denied because the Court found that
Plaintiff had stated an actionable claim for deliberate indifference in his
Complaint against Defendants Danforth, Philbin, and Orr.
Now, Defendants Danforth, Philbin, and Orr contend that the Court’s
decision was inconsistent. Defendants argue that the Court’s determination that

Plaintiff was unable to establish the objective component of a deliberate
indifference claim against Defendant Conley should be controlling as to Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Danforth, Philbin, and Orr. According to Defendants’
reasoning, if Plaintiff could not establish the objective element against Defendant
Conley, then the Court is bound to that finding as to Defendants Danforth,
Philbin, and Orr. However, the Court declines to adopt this reasoning.
The Court’s determination regarding Defendant Conley was in the context
of a motion for summary judgment. In contrast, the Court’s decision about
Defendants Danforth, Philbin, and Orr was in the context of a motion to dismiss.
These are two different motions with two different standards, and the Court’s
determination on one motion does not necessarily lead to the same finding on
another motion. There are contingencies that could occur that would affect the
deliberate indifference inquiry as to Defendants Danforth, Philbin, and Orr and
lead to a different result. For example, even though Plaintiff did not file a
response to Defendant Conley’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff could
respond to Defendants Danforth, Philbin, and Orr and provide evidence that
would establish the objective element of his claim.
The procedural posture of Defendant Conley’s case was different than that
of Defendants Danforth, Philbin, and Orr, and thus, the Court elected to treat
them differently. There was no reason to amalgamate the findings from
Defendant Conley’s Motion for Summary Judgment into Defendants Danforth,
Philbin, and Orr’s Motion to Dismiss, especially when these three Defendants did
2

not attempt to join in the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Conley.
Defendants are welcome to file a motion on the merits, and at that time, the
Court will apply the deliberate indifference framework. Until that time, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has stated an actionable claim against Defendants Danforth,
Philbin, and Orr, and therefore, there is no reason to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of October, 2011.

s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

ebr

3