Barnes v. Carani et al
Filing
49
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 48 Motion for Reconsideration. This case shall remain closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/16/2018. (jlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
TREVOR BARNES,
Plaintiff,
*
*
*
V.
CV 116-015
*
CAPTAIN BRETT CARANI, et al.,
*
*
Defendants.
*
ORDER
Plaintiff is a prisoner presently confined at Telfair State
Prison in Helena, Georgia.
then-incarcerated
Georgia,
initiated
February 4,
violations
at
2016
of
the
the
with
his
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and
Georgia
present
State
case
the filing of
religious
rights
Prison
against
his
that
in
Reidsville,
Defendants
complaint alleging
occurred
during
incarceration at the Columbia County Detention Center
(Doc. 1.)
of
his
C'CCDC").
On April 21, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment regarding Plaintiff's claims.
Clerk
on
Court
gave
Plaintiff
timely
notice
(Doc. 30.)
of
The
Defendants'
summary judgment motion and the summary judgment rules, of the
right to file affidavits or other materials in opposition, and
the consequences of default.
(Doc. 31.)
Plaintiff, however.
failed
to
file
a
summary judgment.
sure
that
timely
response
Nevertheless,
Plaintiff
fully
on
to
Defendants'
May 15,
underst[ood]
the
motion
2017, ''[t]o
for
make
ramifications
of
Defendants' motion for summary should he not file a response,"
the United
States Magistrate
Judge ''reiterate[d]
to
Plaintiff
the consequences of a motion for summary judgment" and granted
him
an
extension
of
time
through
June
5,
2017
to
response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
On
May 17,
2017,
the
Court
received
Plaintiff's
file
his
(Doc. 35.)
response
opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment.^
in
(Doc.
36.)
On February 2, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered a report
and recommendation ("R&R") wherein he recommended that summary
judgment be entered in favor of Defendants.^
(Doc. 44.)
The
Clerk of this Court mailed the R&R - as well as the Magistrate
Judge's
Order
setting
deadlines
to
respond
to
the
R&R
-
to
^ Because Plaintiff failed to submit his own evidence in support of his
opposition and did not contest Defendants' statement of undisputed facts, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that "all of Defendants' fact statements not
opposed by Plaintiff and supported by the evidentiary record are deemed
admitted."
(Doc. 44, at 1-2.)
^ This recommendation was based upon the Magistrate Judge's conclusions that:
(i) Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief and injunctive relief were moot
because he no longer resided at CCDC; (ii) Defendant Cross, in his official
capacity as Chairman of the Columbia County Board of Commissioners, had no
liability for - or authority or control over - the actions of the Columbia
County Sheriff's Office; (iii) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000cc, et seg. ("RLUIPA") did not apply to
Defendants Carani, Woods, or Whittle because the CCDC did not receive federal
funding and, even assuming arguendo that RLUIPA was applicable to these
Defendants, they would be entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment
in their official capacities; and (iv) even if Plaintiff could otherwise
maintain a claim under RLUIPA, he had failed to demonstrate a sincerely-held
religious belief to support a claim thereunder. (See Doc. 44, at 8-14.)
Plaintiff
at
Plaintiff
failed
conducting
Telfair
an
State
to
file
independent
Prison.
objections
and
(See
to
Docs.
the
de novo review
44,
R&R.
of
45.)
After
the
entire
record, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's R&R as its own
opinion on February 27, 2018.
Order").)
(Doc. 46 (the ^'Summary Judgment
Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment and closed this case.
(Id.)
Plaintiff now
moves for reconsideration of the Summary Judgment Order.
48.)
(Doc.
Because Plaintiff has not articulated the specific legal
authority under which he hopes to travel and the Court cannot
determine any other grounds which apply, the Court's analysis
focuses on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e), 60(b)(3), and
60(b)(6).
A party may seek to alter or amend a judgment in a civil
case within twenty-eight days after the entry of the judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e).
Because
reconsideration of
a
judgment
after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly, a movant must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing
nature
decision.
Bostic v. Astrue, 2012 WL 3113942, at *1 (S.D. Ga.
July
31,
2012).
to
A
induce
Rule
the
59(e)
court
motion
to
reverse
may
not
be
its
prior
used
''to
relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that
could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment," as "the
^ On May 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address with the
Court regarding his transfer to Telfair State Prison.
(Doc. 37.)
only
are
newly-
discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact."
Arthur
V.
grounds
King,
for
500
omitted).
granting
F.3d
1335,
a
Rule
1343
59(e)
(11th
motion
Cir.
2007)
(quotations
''Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments
already rejected by the court or for refuting the court's prior
decision."
Bostic,
2012
Int'1 V. Nu-Cape Const.,
WL
3113942,
at
*1
(quoting
Wendy's
Inc., 169 F.R.D. 680, 686 (M.D. Ga.
1996)).
Alternatively, on motion and just terms, a Court may grant
relief from a final judgment for a variety of reasons.
R.
Civ.
P.
60(b).
Rule
60(b)(3)
allows
for
See Fed.
relief
from
a
judgment obtained by "fraud (whether previously called intrinsic
or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).
"To prevail on a 60(b)(3)
motion, the movant must "prove by clear and convincing evidence
that an adverse party has obtained the verdict through fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct."
Inc.
V.
CTI,
(internal
Inc.,
478
quotations,
"Additionally,
"the
F.3d
1303,
citations,
moving
party
and
must
Cox Nuclear Pharmacy,
1314
(11th
Cir.
alterations
show
that
2007)
omitted).
the
conduct
prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his
case
or
defense."
alterations
circumstances
Id.
(internal
omitted).
provided
quotations,
Furthermore,
for
in
Rule
4
citations,
where
60(b)(l)-(5)
the
are
and
specific
lacking,
''Rule
60(b)(6)
grant
relief
justifies
provides
from
a
relief."
a
catch-all,
judgment
Aldana
v.
for
Del
authorizing
"any
other
Monte
Fresh
Inc., 741 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2014).
a
court
reason
Produce
to
that
N.A.,
To prevail under
Rule 60(b)(6), however, the moving party "must demonstrate that
the
circumstances
relief."
are
sufficiently
extraordinary
to
warrant
Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted); see
also Doe V. Drummond Co., 782 F.3d 576, 612 (11th Cir. 2015)
("To
warrant
Plaintiffs
relief
show
under
sufficiently
Rule
60(b)(6),
extraordinary
not
only
must
circumstances,
but
also that absent such relief, an extreme and unexpected hardship
will result." (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
Here, Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive a copy of
the Magistrate Judge's R&R until March 5, 2018.^
1.)
(Doc. 48, at
Plaintiff posits that officials at Telfair State Prison
intentionally
failed
to
timely
deliver
the
R&R
to
him
as
retaliation for his filing of grievances and lawsuits such as
the
instant
action.
(Id.
at
1-2.)
Even
assuming
that
Plaintiff's aforesaid allegations and assumptions are correct,
however. Plaintiff does not announce any substantive objections
that he maintains with regard to the R&R or the Summary Judgment
Order.
Indeed,
Plaintiff
simply
"request[s]
that
the
Court
reconsider its judgment and allow these proceedings to proceed
^ Plaintiff states, however, that he timely received a copy of the Summary
Judgment Order on March 1, 2018.
(Doc. 48, at 1.)
in
trial
in
lieu
of
what
has
transpired."
(Id.
at
2.)
Moreover, Plaintiff already had notice of - and the opportunity
to be heard on - the issues addressed in the R&R and Summary
Judgment
Order
by
way
of
his
response
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
in
opposition
to
Accordingly, Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate newly-discovered evidence or manifest
errors
of
law
or
fact
that would justify a finding
that
the
Court should alter or amend its Summary Judgment Order pursuant
to Rule 59(e).
See Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343.
Similarly, by failing to identify any objections that he
would
have
thereof.
raised
to
Plaintiff
the
has
R&R
failed
had
he
to
timely
received
demonstrate
by
a
copy
clear
and
convincing evidence that his alleged failure to timely receive a
copy
of
the
R&R
has
prevented
him
from
fully
presenting his case or defense in this matter.
above.
present
Plaintiff
his
case
already
by
had
way
of
notice
his
and
response
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
fairly
Indeed, as noted
an
in
opportunity
to
opposition
to
Accordingly, Plaintiff
has failed
to demonstrate his entitlement to relief
60(b)(3).
See Cox Nuclear
Pharmacy,
and
Inc.,
under Rule
478 F.3d at 1314.
For these same reasons. Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate
circumstances
so
extraordinary
or
compelling
as
to
require
relief as required to receive relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Driommond Co., 782 F.3d at 612; Aldana, 741 F.3d at 1355.
See
Based on the foregoing and upon due consideration, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration {doc.
48) is DENIED and this case shall remain CLOSED.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this
day of March,
2018.
J. V^AMp^ HALL, CfHIEF JUDGE
unitSstates district court
SOUKffiRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?