The State of Georgia v. Harpo

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff Wilhy Harpos Motion for Reconsideration 9 and denying as moot Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel 7 and Motion to Amend Complaint 8 . Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 4/12/17. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
STATE OF GEORGIA,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:16-cv-4069-WSD
1:16-cv-2955-WSD

WILHY HARPO,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Wilhy Harpo’s Motions to
Appoint Counsel, Motions to Amend Complaint, and Motions for Reconsideration
filed in civil action numbers 1:16-cv-2955 (“August Action”) and 1:16-cv-4069
(“October Action”).
I.

BACKGROUND
These are the latest in a series of actions filed in this Court by Mr. Harpo.

The Court has remanded each previous case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
or dismissed it as frivolous. See, e.g., Order, Broadstone Maple, LLC v. Alexander

Corporate Accommodations, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-2774-WSD (N.D. Ga.
August 2, 2016) (Doc. 4).1
On July 2, 2016, Mr. Harpo was arrested in the Fulton County courthouse
and charged with willful obstruction of law enforcement officers by use of threats
or violence, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(b), disorderly conduct, in
violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39, and criminal trespass, in violation of O.C.G.A.
§ 16-7-21. (See August Action, [1.2] at 6).
On August 12, 2016, Harpo filed in this Court his “Petition for Removal”
[1.1] in the August Action, and, on October 31, 2016, he filed his “Petition for
Removal” [1.1] in the October Action. In each petition, Harpo seeks to remove to
this Court the state criminal action against him.
On February 3, 2017, the Court issued its Order [5] (“February 3rd Order”)
remanding these actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). The Court found that removal of the Georgia criminal
1

Because Plaintiff is a frequent filer of frivolous lawsuits, the Court has
previously ordered him “to disclose his full litigation history in any civil rights
complaint and/or [IFP] affidavit that he files.” See, e.g., Williams v. Harpo, No.
1:16-cv-12225-WSD (N.D. Ga. 2016) (ECF No. 2 at 2); Harpo v. City of Atlanta,
No. 1:16-cv-1067-WSD (N.D. Ga. 2016) (ECF No. 2 at 1-2); Harpo v. City of
Atlanta, No. 1:14-cv-2157-WSD (N.D. Ga. 2014) (ECF No. 2 at 1-2); Harpo
v. Fulton Cty. Sheriff, No. 1:14-cv-2208-WSD (N.D. Ga. 2014) (ECF No. 2 at
1-2). It appears Plaintiff has complied with that requirement in filing these actions.

2

action against Harpo is not permitted, and that the Court lacks any other basis for
jurisdiction.
On February 3, 2017, Harpo filed, in these actions and in several others, his
Motion to Appoint Counsel, Motion to Amend Complaint, and Motion for
Reconsideration. His Motion for Reconsideration appears to seek reconsideration
of the Court’s orders in other civil actions he filed. See, e.g., Harpo v. Howard, et
al., No. 1:16-cv-3876.
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)).

3

Harpo does not present any newly discovered evidence, intervening
development or change in controlling law, or need to correct a clear error of law or
fact. Harpo does not appear to contest that he failed to meet his burden to show
that he is being prosecuted for exercising a federally protected civil right to racial
equality or that a formal expression of state law has deprived him of a federally
protected right to racial equality. Accordingly, removal of the Georgia criminal
action against Harpo is not permitted. The Court lacks any other basis for
jurisdiction. Harpo’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Because the Court
denies the Motion for Reconsideration, Harpo’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and
Motion to Amend Complaint are denied as moot.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Wilhy Harpo’s Motions for

Reconsideration filed in civil action numbers 1:16-cv-2955 and 1:16-cv-4069 are
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel
and Motions to Amend Complaint filed in civil action numbers 1:16-cv-2955 and
1:16-cv-4069 are DENIED AS MOOT.

4

SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2017.

5