Adams et al v. State of Georgia
Filing
10
ORDER denying plaintiff's (Court contrues as) 7 MOTION to Reconsider the Dismissal of her Complaint. Pleading entitled "Affirmative Defenses & Supporting Documents". Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 5/10/2013. (bdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SHEENA ADAMS,
Plaintiff
v.
1:13-cv-257-WSD
STATE OF GEORGIA,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sheena Adams’1 (“Plaintiff”)
pleading entitled “Affirmative Defenses & Supporting Documents” [7].
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2013, Plaintiff submitted an Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [1]. On January 30, 2013,
Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
1
There appears to be only one Plaintiff in this action based on the contents of the
Complaint and subsequent pleadings. The Court will refer to Plaintiff in the
singular for the purposes of this Order. See also Adams v. State of Georgia, Civil
Action No. 1:12-cv-2264-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed June 28, 2012); State of Georgia v.
Adams, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-2034-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed June 13, 2012); State
of Georgia v. Adams, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-1805-WSD (N.D. Ga. filed May
24, 2012).
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), [2], and the Complaint was submitted to
this Court for a frivolity determination [3].
On January 30, 2013, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) [4]. In her Complaint, Plaintiff makes
a variety of nonsensical claims regarding the State of Georgia having caused her
“forced conversion in habeas corpus . . . manifested by a religious conversion from
the invasion of a mental illness.” (Compl. ¶ 1). The Court found that the
allegations in the Complaint failed to state a plausible claim upon which relief
could be granted. The Court further determined that, to the extent to which
Plaintiff’s Complaint could be interpreted to present a claim for relief, those claims
lacked an arguable basis in law or fact, and the Court dismissed the Complaint as
frivolous [4].
On February 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Affirmative Defenses
& Supporting Documents” [7]2. This pro se pleading contains incoherent claims
similar to those in Plaintiff’s original Complaint regarding “the use of habeas
corpus in the plaintiff’s conspiracy . . . to control and interfere with the plaintiff’s
personality from the invasion of a mental illness called schizophrenia. . . .” (See
Dkt. Entry 7 at 1). Included with the document are exhibits that Plaintiff asserts
2
That same day, Plaintiff also re-filed her Complaint [6].
2
are “references that are supported by factual allegations from the Plaintiff’s
complaint for illegal imprisonment in habeas corpus; raising a motion for
appropriate relief.” [7-1]. The documents include two change of address forms, a
receipt from a bonding company, copies of Plaintiff’s birth certificate, driver’s
license, and passport, a notice to meet with her probation officer, documents
related to Plaintiff’s mental health evaluation and treatment, and a copy a DeKalb
County Superior Court order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for civil rights
violations. (See Pl.’s Ex. A-G).
The court liberally construes Plaintiff’s pleading entitled “Affirmative
Defenses & Supporting Documents” as an attempt to offer support for the factual
allegations in her original Complaint. The Court thus construes the pleading as a
motion to reconsider the dismissal of her Complaint as frivolous.
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) permit the Court to alter or
amend judgments or provide a party relief from a judgment or order. The Court
does not reconsider its orders as a matter of routine practice. Local Rule 7.2 E.,
N.D. Ga. The Court’s Local Rules require parties to file motions for
reconsideration “within twenty-eight (28) days after entry of the order or
judgment.” Id. The Local Rules also provide that “[p]arties and attorneys for the
3
parties shall not file motions to reconsider the court’s denial of a prior motion for
reconsideration.” Id.
Motions for reconsideration are left to the sound discretion of the district
court and are to be decided “as justice requires.” See Region 8 Forest Serv.
Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993); Cobell
v. Norton, 355 F. Supp. 2d 531, 539 (D.D.C. 2005) (“asking ‘what justice requires’
amounts to determining, within the Court’s discretion, whether reconsideration is
necessary under the relevant circumstances”); United States ex rel. Corsello v.
Lincare, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:98-CV-0204-ODE, 2003 WL 25714876, at *6
(N.D. Ga. June 2, 2003). Motions for reconsideration are generally appropriate
where there is: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or
change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact.
See Jersawitz v. People TV, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1344 (N.D. Ga. 1999); Pres.
Endangered Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 916 F.
Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff’d, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996). A motion
for reconsideration should not be used to present the Court with arguments already
heard and dismissed, or to offer new legal theories or evidence that could have
been presented in the previously-filed motion. Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d
1256, 1259 (N.D. Ga. 2003); see also Pres. Endangered Areas, 916 F. Supp. at
4
1560 (“A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for the moving party and
their counsel to instruct the court on how the court ‘could have done it better’ the
first time.”).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented any coherent explanation or
legal basis for reconsideration, to include the existence of newly discovered
evidence, an intervening development or change in controlling law, or a need to
correct a clear error of law or fact. Plaintiff’s Motion presents additional
nonsensical allegations similar to those contained in her original Complaint. The
pleadings do not present a need to correct an error of law or fact, and Plaintiff’s
exhibits do not offer any previously unavailable factual support for the allegations
in her original Complaint. The Court finds that justice does not require
reconsideration. See Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council, 993 F.2d
at 860. For the same reasons, the Court finds no reason to amend its findings or
make additional filings under Rule 52(b). See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52(b) (“On a
party’s motion filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court
may amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend the
judgment accordingly. . . .”). Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is denied.
III.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [7] is DENIED.
5
SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2013.
6
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?