Reid v. Wilkes et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. This case shall remain closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 02/23/2018. (thb)

IN THE

UNITED

FOR THE

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

*

TRAVION REID,

*

Plaintiff,
*
*

v,

CV

117-032

*
*

et al.,

SCOTT WILKES,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a prisoner presently confined at Augusta State

Medical Prison in Grovetown,

se,

Georgia.

Plaintiff,

proceeding pro

initiated the present case against Defendants on March 14,

2017

with

the

filing

of

his

complaint.

(Doc.

Contemporaneously with the institution of this case,
filed a motion

2.)

for

On May 22,

leave to proceed in

2017,

Plaintiff filed:

1.)

Plaintiff

forma pauperis.

(i)

(Doc.

a motion requesting

injunctive relief (i.e., to be transferred to Federal custody to
obtain

state

medical

treatment

officials

lawsuit);
additional

and

do

(ii)

not

he

believes

retaliate

he

against

needs

him

and

for

to

ensure

filing

this

a motion to amend his complaint to add an

defendant.

(Docs.

10,

12.)

On

June

5,

2017,

Plaintiff filed a writing styled as an "Order to Show Cause for

an

[sic]

Preliminary

Injunction

and a

Temporary

Restraining

Order,"

in

which

Plaintiff

aforementioned motion

On June 8,

2017,

further

requesting

elaborated

injunctive

Plaintiff filed a motion for

2017,

and

dismissal

(Doc. 15.)

the Magistrate Judge conducted an initial

recommendation
without

14.)

leave to proceed

review of Plaintiff's pleadings and other filings

report

his

(Doc.

relief.

without paying the initial partial filing fee.1
On June 12,

on

("R&R")

prejudice

of

wherein
this

he

case

and entered a

recommended
for

the

Plaintiff's

dishonesty in failing to fully disclose his prior filing history

in

his

complaint.2

1 On March

14,

2017,

(Doc.
the

16.)

Magistrate

Thd

Judge

Magistrate

tentatively

Judge

granted

also

Plaintiff's

request to proceed in forma pauperis and directed Plaintiff to complete a
Prisoner Trust

Fund Account Statement form and Consent to Collection of Fees

form so that, inter alia, the Magistrate Judge could properly calculate
Plaintiff's initial partial filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act.
(Doc. 3; see also Doc. 3-1 (the forms).)
Plaintiff did not return the

forms provided to him with the March 14, 2017 Order, but rather submitted "a
different

account

certification

form

that

does

not

contain

all

of

the

information required by the Court's form[s]."
(See Doc. 5 (citing Doc. 4);
see also Doc. 4.)
On April 6, 2017, the Magistrate Judge noted this
deviation and ordered Plaintiff to sign and return the previously-provided
forms

or have this case dismissed without prejudice.

(Doc.

5.)

Plaintiff

filed the required forms on April 20 and 24, 2017.
(Docs. 6, 7.)
"Based on
the information furnished by Plaintiff," the Magistrate Judge "order[ed]
Plaintiff to pay an initial filing fee of $25.00 within thirty days from the
date of this Order" entered April 25, 2017.
(Doc. 8, at 1.)
On May 3, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which the Court denied
on May 25, 2017.
(Docs. 9, 13.)
In his Order denying Plaintiff's motion to
appoint counsel, the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff had failed to pay
the assessed initial filing fee as required by the Order entered April 25,
2017 and directed him to pay that assessed initial filing fee or "show[] the
Court why he has not complied with the Order directing the payment."
(Doc.
13, at 1-2.)
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without paying the
initial partial filing fee (doc. 15) appears to be in response thereto.

2 Plaintiff's complaint was filed on the "Form to be Used by Prisoners in
Filing a Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C § 1983." (Doc. 1.)
This form requires that prisoner plaintiffs disclose, inter alia: (i) any
lawsuits they have brought "in state or federal court dealing with the same
facts involved in [the present] action"; (ii) any lawsuits they have brought
"in federal

present]

court which deal with facts

action";

(iii)

other than those involved in

the disposition of

any such lawsuits;

and

[the

(iv)

reported that Plaintiff had failed to make the requisite showing
to

justify the requested injunctive relief and recommended that

Plaintiff's

requests

for

injunctive

complaint be denied as moot.
2017,

relief

(Doc.

16,

and

at

to

5-7.)

amend

On June 28,

Plaintiff filed written objections to the R&R,

argued

that

"[b]ecause

he
of

failed
[his]

to

disclose

misconception

his
of

entire
the

in which he

filing

law"

and

history
that

undisclosed lawsuit concerned "'totally different issues."
18,

at

3-4.)

Plaintiff

also

repeated

the

therein

the

the
(Doc.

same

or

similar arguments previously made in support of his requests for
injunctive relief.

(Id.

at 4-5.)

After conducting an independent and de novo review of the
entire

record,

this

Court

overruled

Plaintiff's

adopted the Magistrate Judge's R&R as
10, 2017.

(Doc. 19

objections

and

its own opinion on July

(the "Dismissal Order").)

Indeed, the Court

whether the plaintiff prisoner was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in
any such lawsuits.
(See Doc. 1, at 1-3.)
In his complaint, Plaintiff under penalty of perjury - identified a single other case he filed "dealing
with

the

same

facts

involved

in this

action",

namely

Reid v.

Crickmar,

et

al. , Case No. l:17-cv-619 (N.D. Ga. filed Feb. 16, 2017).
(Doc. 1, at 1-2.)
Plaintiff further stated - again, under penalty of perjury - that he had not

filed any lawsuits "[w]hile incarcerated or detained in any facility . . . in
federal

action."

court

which

(Id.

deal

at 2.)

with

facts

other

failed to disclose the matter of Reid v.

230 (N.D. Ga.

than

those

As noted by the Magistrate Judge,

filed Jan. 19, 2017).

Crickmar,

et al.,

(Doc. 16, at 2-5.)

involved

however,
Case No.

in

this

Plaintiff
l:17-cv-

The Court notes that

Plaintiff also failed to disclose the matters of Reid v. Hart, Case No. 1:12-

cv-312 (N.D. Ga. filed Jan.
3229 (N.D. Ga. filed Sept.

30, 2012), and Reid v. Toole, Case No. l:13-cv26, 2013).
Further, since the filing of this

case,

Plaintiff also appears to have filed three new actions,

Reid

v.

Crickmar,

et

al.,

4:17-cv-119

(N.D.

Ga.

filed

namely:

June

8,

(i)

2017)

(subsequently dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to disclose
prior lawsuits); (ii) Reid v. Crickmar, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-190 (N.D.
Ga. filed Aug. 16, 2017) (pending); and (iii) Reid v. Wilkes, et al., Case
No.

l:18-cv-003

(S.D. Ga.

filed Jan. 3, 2018)

(pending).

noted

that

even

identified

dealing

by

assuming

the

with

arguendo

Magistrate

[the]

same

Judge

facts

Plaintiff provided dishonest
case

under

disclosure
involved

the
of

in

omitted).)

this

lawsuits

prejudice

"as

sanction

process,"

denied

as

the

(Id.

at

the Court

for

moot

(Doc.

now moves

for

undisclosed

be

in

considered

this

facts

1-2

Plaintiff's

form
other

abuse

than

the

those

quotations

the

for

judicial

injunctive

and closed this case.
of

then

case without

of

requests

reconsideration

not

requiring

(internal

(Id. )

Dismissal

Order.

21.)

A party may seek to alter or amend a

judgment in a civil

case within twenty-eight days after the entry of the
Fed.

as

action,

dismissed this

Plaintiff's

case

identifying the

complaint

dealing with

relief and to amend his complaint,
Plaintiff

could

involved

on

action."

Accordingly,

"the

information by not

question

any

that

R.

Civ.

P.

59(e).

Because

reconsideration

of

judgment.
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

3

In

a

footnote

to

to
v.

the

induce

the

court

Astrue,

2012

WL

Dismissal

Order,

to

reverse

3113942,

the

Court

at

noted

its

*1

that

prior

(S.D.

"[a]s

Ga.

the

dismissal is without prejudice, nothing in this Order puts any additional
restrictions on Plaintiff's filing activities beyond those already in place

for any prisoner filing a new case in federal court."
(Doc. 19, at 2 n.l.)
Notably, Plaintiff filed a new action in this Court on January 3, 2018,
regarding substantially the same claims raised in the present case.
(See
Reid v. Wilkes,
Doc.

1.)

et al. , Case No.

l:18-cv-3

(S.D.

Ga.

filed Jan.

3,

2018),

July

31,

2012).

A

Rule

relitigate old matters,

59(e)

motion

may

not

be

used

"to

raise argument or present evidence that

could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment," as "the

only

grounds

for

granting

discovered

evidence

v.

500

King,

omitted).

a

Rule

or manifest

F.3d

1335,

"Rule 59(e)

59(e)

errors

1343

of

(11th

motion

law

Cir.

or

are

newly-

fact."

Arthur

2007)

(quotations

is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments

already rejected by the court or for refuting the court's prior
decision."

Int'l

v.

Bostic,

Nu-Cape

2012

Const.,

WL

3113942,

Inc.,

169

at

F.R.D.

*1

(quoting

680,

686

Wendy's

(M.D.

Ga.

1996)).

Here,

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate newly-discovered

evidence or manifest errors of law or fact that would justify a

finding
Order.

that

the

Rather,

previously-rejected

Court

should

Plaintiff

alter

uses

arguments,

or amend

his

attempt

motion

to

its
to

refute

Dismissal

rehash

the

his

Court's

reasoning, and blame his misconduct on his ignorance of the law.
The Court has already heard, thoroughly considered, and rejected

the very complaints that Plaintiff now raises.

Because these

complaints do not present newly-discovered evidence or otherwise
demonstrate

clear

error

or

manifest

injustice

in

the

Court's

Dismissal

Order,

the

Court

finds

neither

a

factual

or

legal

basis for altering or amending its decision in this case.4
Based

on

HEREBY ORDERED

22)

the
that

foregoing

and

upon

due

consideration,

IT

Plaintiff's motion

for

reconsideration

IS

(doc.

is DENIED and this case shall remain CLOSED.

ORDER
February,

ENTERED

at

Augusta,

Georgia

this £><3

day

of

2018.

J(_JR£l&«AX HALL, 'CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED/STATES

DISTRICT COURT
tERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4 Were

the

Court

to

liberally construe

Plaintiff's

present

motion

as

one

seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Plaintiff still
would not be entitled to any relief,

as he has failed to demonstrate - let

alone provide any evidence in support of thereunder.

See

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b) (1-6);

Sheriff's Office, 414 F. App'x 221, 226

any reason justifying relief
see

also

(11th Cir. 2011)

Redmon

v.

Lake

Cty.

("The district court

did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Plaintiff's explanation for
his failure to disclose the Colorado lawsuit - that he misunderstood the form

-

did not excuse the misrepresentation and that dismissal without prejudice

was a proper sanction.
The complaint form clearly asked Plaintiff to
disclose previously filed lawsuits he had filed not only with similar facts
to the instant case, but also lawsuits otherwise relating to his imprisonment
or conditions of his imprisonment.
The district court was entitled to
conclude that Plaintiff had abused the judicial process when he failed to do

so."); Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984)
("[Rlelief under [umbrella "any other reason that justifies relief" clause]
is an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances.").