Jacobs v. Atlanta Police Department et al
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff Erika Jacobss Motion for Reconsideration 12 . Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 8/26/16. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
ERIKA JACOBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:15-cv-3520-WSD
ATLANTA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, Airport, DEKALB
COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, COBB COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Erika Jacobs’s (“Plaintiff”)
Motion for Reconsideration [12].
I.
BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2016, the Court entered an Order [5] (the “March 23rd
Order”) requiring Plaintiff to file, on or before April 8, 2016, an Amended
Complaint that complies with Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with its March 23rd Order will
result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2). (March 23rd
Order at 5). Plaintiff did not file an Amended Complaint.
On April 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order [6] dismissing this action
pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2) for failure to comply with the Court’s March
23rd Order.
On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Extension of Time to File
an Amended Complaint [10]. In it, she stated that she changed her address on
March 23, 2016, that she requested her mail be forwarded, but that the “post office
has not forwarded me the order from the Northern District Court as of today.”
(Mot. at 1). She sought an extension of time to file her Amended Complaint. (Id.).
On April 14, 2016, the Court entered an Order [11] denying Plaintiff’s
Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint. The Court noted
that Plaintiff failed to inform the Court of her change of address, and her failure
adversely affected the management of this case, leading to Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Court’s March 23rd Order. The Court noted that dismissal of this
action was warranted under Local Rule 41.2(B), NDGa.
On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s April 13, 2016, Order dismissing this action pursuant to Local Rule
41.3(A)(2). In it, Plaintiff again states she changed her address and did not receive
the March 23rd Order. To date, Plaintiff still has not filed her Amended
Complaint.
2
II.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(E), “[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be
filed as a matter of routine practice.” L.R. 7.2(E), NDGa. Rather, such motions
are only appropriate when “absolutely necessary” to present: (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. Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d
1256, 1258-59 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Motions for reconsideration are left to the sound discretion of the district court and
are to be decided as justice requires. Belmont Holdings Corp. v. SunTrust Banks,
Inc., 896 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1222-23 (N.D. Ga. 2012) (citing Region 8 Forest Serv.
Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993)).
Plaintiff does not identify any newly discovered evidence, change in
controlling law, or need to correct a clear error of law or fact, and her Motion for
Reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration offers the same
reasons for her failure to comply with the March 23rd Order that the Court rejected
in its order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended
Complaint. As the Court noted in denying that motion, under Local Rule 41.2(B),
“failure . . . of a party appearing pro se to keep the clerk’s office informed of any
change in address and/or telephone number which causes a delay or otherwise
3
adversely affects the management of the case shall constitute grounds . . . for
dismissal of the action without prejudice.” LR 41.2(B), NDGa. Plaintiff failed to
inform the Court of her change of address, and dismissal of this action would be
warranted for this additional reason. Her failure adversely affected the
management of this case, leading to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
March 23rd Order. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has had nearly five months
to file her Amended Complaint, but has failed to do so. Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is denied.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Erika Jacobs’s Motion for
Reconsideration [12] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2016.
4
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?