Evans v. Holt et al

Filing 15

ORDER AND OPINION: The Court will not recede from its previous ruling, and DENIES what the Court has construed as Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Orinda D. Evans on 5/16/2018. (sap)

ti.s,D.c. i mam
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGlWAY 1 7 2018
ATLANTA DIVISION
PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983

JONATHAN LEE EVANS
GDC No. 1018345,
Plaintiff,
V

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:17-CV-5508-ODE

.

AHMED HOLT, Warden; e t a l . ,
Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION

T h i s m a t t e r i s b e f o r e t h e Court on what t h e C l e r k has s t y l e d as
P l a i n t i f f ' s p r o se motion f o r an i n j u n c t i o n [Doc. 13] and motion f o r
appointment o f counsel

[Doc. 1 4 ] .

On February 22, 2018, M a g i s t r a t e

Judge J u s t i n S. Anand recommended t h a t t h e Court d i s m i s s
complaint

[Doc. 1] pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because

Plaintiff's
Plaintiff

had f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c o g n i z a b l e c l a i m under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.
4) .

T h i s Court adopted Judge Anand's recommendation over what i t

c o n s t r u e d as P l a i n t i f f ' s

objections

[Docs.

7, 8, 9 ] ,

judgment d i s m i s s i n g t h e case on A p r i l 4, 2018. (Doc. 10) .

and e n t e r e d
T h i s case

i s now c l o s e d .
P l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r an i n j u n c t i o n appears t o be an a t t e m p t by
P l a i n t i f f t o ask t h i s Court f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i t s judgment.

"A

m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n cannot be used ' t o r e l i t i g a t e o l d m a t t e r s ,
r a i s e argument, o r p r e s e n t evidence t h a t c o u l d have been r a i s e d p r i o r
t o t h e e n t r y o f judgment.'"
(11th

C i r . 2010) ( q u o t i n g

Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740
Michael

Linet,

I n c . v. V i l l a g e o f

W e l l i n g t o n , 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ) .

Here,

Plaintiff

m e r e l y a t t e m p t s t o l i t i g a t e o l d m a t t e r s by r e i t e r a t i n g t h a t he has
been i n j u r e d by o t h e r inmates and t h a t h i s p r o p e r t y was t a k e n from

him.

(Doc. 1 3 ) . P l a i n t i f f a l s o now a t t e m p t s t o r a i s e a l l e g a t i o n s i n

which he c l a i m s t h a t t h e pharmacy i s " a l t e r i n g " and/or " c r u s h i n g " h i s
p r e s c r i p t i o n m e d i c a t i o n s so t h a t he cannot see what a c t u a l m e d i c a t i o n
he i s t a k i n g - - a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t he never r a i s e d p r i o r t o t h e e n t r y o f
judgment d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he c o u l d have done so.
1).

(Doc. 13 a t

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e Court w i l l n o t recede from i t s p r e v i o u s r u l i n g ,

and DENIES what t h e Court has c o n s t r u e d as P l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n [Doc. 1 3 ] .
I T IS FURTHER ORDERED t h a t P l a i n t i f f ' s m o t i o n f o r appointment o f
counsel

[Doc. 14] i s DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED t h i s

day o f May, 2018.

O R T N D A D. E V A N S
UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T

-2-

JUDGE