Parks v. Roberts et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Reconsideration. This case remains closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/07/2019. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

ROBERT LEE PARKS,

Plaintiff,
CV 118-197

V.

LIZ ROBERTS, et al..
Defendants.

ORDER

Before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff's

motion

to

reconsider

the

Court's March 5, 2019 Order (Doc. 26) and corresponding Clerk's

Judgment (Doc. 27).

presented

in

United

(Doc. 28.)

States

The facts of this case are

Magistrate

Judge

February 5, 2019 Report and Recommendation.
1-3.)

Brian

K.

Epps's

(R. & R., Doc. 21, at

Magistrate Judge Epps recommended dismissing Plaintiff's

case for failure to state a claim and denying Plaintiff's emergency

protective order.

(Id. at 5-7.)

In the March 5, 2019 Order, the

Court adopted Magistrate Judge Epps's Report and Recommendation.
(Mar. 5, 2019 Order, Doc. 26.)

On March 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed

the present motion to reconsider the March 5, 2019 Order.

(Mot.

to Recons., Doc. 28.)

^''Reconsideration

of a

previous order is an extraordinary

remedy, to be employed sparingly."

Armbuster v. Rosenbloom, No.

l:15-cv-114, 2016 WL 1441467, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 11, 2016)

(citation and internal quotation marks); Spellman v. Haley, No.
97-T-640-N,

2004

WL

866837,

at

*2

(M.D.

Ala.

Feb.

22,

2002)

[L]itigants should not use motions to reconsider as a knee-jerk
reaction

to

an

adverse

ruling.").

Because

it

"is

not

an

appeal, . . . it is improper on a motion for reconsideration to
ask the Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through

— rightly or wrongly." Armbuster, 2016 WL 1441467, at *1 (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).

It is well established

that "additional facts and arguments that should have been raised
in the first instance are not appropriate grounds for a motion for
reconsideration."

Gougler v. Sirius Prods., Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d

1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Am. Home
Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239

(11th Cir. 1985) (cautioning against use of motion to reconsider
to afford a litigant "two bites at the apple"); Rossi v. Troy State

Univ., 330 F. Supp. 2d 1240, 1249-50 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (denying
motion to reconsider where plaintiff failed to submit evidence

prior to entry of order and failed to show good cause for the
omission).

Furthermore, "the moving party must set forth facts or

law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse

its prior decision." Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc.,
181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002).

And, ultimately,

"the decision to grant a motion for reconsideration ^is committed
to the sound discretion of the district judge.'"

Townsend v. Gray,

505 F. App'x 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Region 8 Forest
Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th
Cir. 1993)).

A court may reconsider a final order or judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60.

Plaintiff fails to note under

which rule he brings this motion for reconsideration; thus, it is

up to the Court to determine.

Simply put, ""if a motion is filed

within twenty-eight days of judgment, the motion should be analyzed
under Rule 59."

Brown v. Spells, No. 7:ll-cv-91 (HL), 2011 WL

4543905, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2011); accord Mahone v. Ray,

326 F.3d 1176, 1177 n.l (11th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff filed his

motion to reconsider thirteen days following the challenged order;

thus, the Court analyzes Plaintiff's motion under Rule 59(e).
Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is:

^^ {!) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent

manifest injustice."

Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206,

2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007).
''cannot

be

used

to

relitigate

old

matters,

raise

Rule 59(e)
argument or

present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment."

Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)

(citation omitted).

Plaintiff s case was dismissed for stating only conclusory

allegations

in

his

complaint

and

"offer[ing]

no

evidence

connecting Defendants to any constitutional violation, only his
beliefs."

(R. & R., at 5-6; see also Mar. 5, 2019 Order, at 5.)

Here, Plaintiff offers no new arguments, facts, or evidence to

support the Court reconsidering its March 5, 2019 Order or Cleric's

Judgment.

Plaintiff parrots the same conclusory allegations as

set out in his complaint.

(Compare Am. Compl., Doc. 17, at 4-5,

and R. & R., at 3, 5-6, with Mot. to Recons., at 3-4.)

To the

motion to reconsider. Plaintiff attached a grievance from January

8, 2018.

(Doc. 28, at 7.)

This grievance, however, was included

in the amended complaint (Doc. 17-1, at 47); thus, it does not
constitute new evidence.

See Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d

43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997) ('MPJarties cannot introduce new evidence

post-judgment unless they show that the evidence was previously
unavailable.").

For

the

foregoing

reasons.

reconsideration (Doc. 28) is DENIED.

Plaintiff's

motion

for

This case remains CLOSED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

day of October,

2019.

J. R^ND^ HALL,"XHIEF JUDGE

unitedTstates district court
^UTFfERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA