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)

Download PDF
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.").

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?