Stevens v. United States et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 74 Motion for Reconsideration, and denying 75 & 78 Motions for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 7/19/2017. (csr)

l^tI

tlKntteb States! Bts(trtct Court

:lfor tlje ^ontliem Bisitrtct of 4^eorsta
PrunsitDtck Btbtoton
RAYFORD STEVENS,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:I4-cv-I78

Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DR.
PETER LIBERO; PA B. AREMU; and MRS.
MOON,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff s post-

judgment Motion for Reconsideration and two Motions to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis on Appeal.
reasons set forth below,

Dkt. Nos. 74,

75,

78.

For the

the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motions.

The Court's Order dated March 28,

2017,

shall remain the Order

of the Court.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this cause of action in December 2014

pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act,

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and

2671, et seq.

(^^FTCA") , and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
Defendants'

Dkt. No.

1.

403 U.S.

388

(1971),

and alleged

actions caused him to lose vision in his left eye.

Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint

on February 8, 2016, dkt. no. 21, and the Clerk of Court entered
a Scheduling Notice on this same date advising the parties that
discovery was to close on June 27,

2016, dkt. no. 22.

The Court

later set the deadline for the close of discovery as July 27,
2016.

Dkt.

No.

30.

Defendants filed a Motion to Compel and for Sanctions,

arguing that Plaintiff failed to participate in discovery.
No.

32.

Plaintiff then filed a

Motion for

Dkt.

Reconsideration of

the Court's Order granting Defendants' Motion to Amend the

Scheduling Notice as to the expert disclosure deadlines.
No. 33.

Dkt.

The Court granted both portions of Defendants' Motion

and deferred ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff sought

reconsideration of the Court's Order regarding the expert
disclosure deadlines.

Plaintiff maintained that he should have

been afforded the opportunity to obtain counsel and an expert to

assist him in this case.

Id. at p. 2.

Relatedly, in his Motion

for Extension of Time, Plaintiff once again sought additional
time to obtain counsel to assist him in this case.

Plaintiff

maintained he has a limited education, and the only reason he

was able to commence this cause of action is because he had the
assistance of a fellow inmate.

However,

that inmate was

transferred from the Federal Correctional Institution in Jesup,

Georgia,

(''FCI Jesup").

Dkt. No. 38, p. 2.

Plaintiff stated

his request was made in good faith and was not designed or
intended to delay or prolong the litigation.

Id. at p. 5.

Additionally, Plaintiff asserted he would diligently abide by
any and all future instructions from the Court.

Id.

However, in its August 12, 2016, Order, the Court found
Plaintiff s course of conduct in this case showed a disregard
for this Court's directives and belied Plaintiff's contentions.

Dkt. No. 35.

In granting Defendants' Motion to Compel, the

Court specifically found that Plaintiff did not answer
Defendants'

discovery requests, as previously instructed, nor

did he respond to Defendants' Motion.

(quoting Dkt. No. 11, p. 15).

Dkt. No. 35, p. 4

The Court again instructed

Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests within
ten (10) days of its August 12, 2016, Order.
forewarned that his
would result

sanction.
warning.

failure

Id.

Plaintiff was

to follow this Court's directives

in the dismissal of this cause of action as a

Id.

Unfortunately,

Plaintiff failed to heed this

On September 16, 2016,

the Court denied Plaintiff's

Motions for Extension of Time and once again noted his disregard
for

this

Court's Orders.

Dkt.

No.

43.

On February 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended,
inter alia, that the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff s Complaint for Lack of Prosecution and Failure to

Comply with Court Orders and deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in
forma pauperis.

Dkt. No. 61.

The Court adopted the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court,
over Plaintiff's Objections, by Order dated March 28, 2017.

Dkt. No. 66.
29, 2017.

The Court entered a judgment of dismissal on March

Dkt. No. 67.

Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Alter

or Amend the Judgment, dkt. no. 68, which the Court denied on
April 25,

2017, dkt. no.

70.

Plaintiff has now filed a

Motion for Reconsideration of the

portion of the Court's Order denying him in forma pauperis
status on appeal.

Dkt. No. 74.

In addition. Plaintiff has

filed two Motions for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis.^
Nos.

75,

Dkt.

78.
DISCUSSION

I.

Plain-biff's Mo-tion f o r Reconsiderabion

Plaintiff requests this Court reconsider its previous Order
denying him in forma pauperis status on appeal.

Plaintiff

maintains his appeal is being undertaken in good faith.
No.

^

74, p.

Dkt.

1.

Plaintiff's first Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis was

deemed deficient because he failed to sign that pleading.
76.
4

Dkt. No.

A motion for reconsideration, or a Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e) motion, is ^""an extraordinary remedy, to be

employed sparingly."

Smith ex rel. Smith v. Augusta-Richmond

Cty., No. CV 110-126, 2012 WL 1355575, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18,
2012)

(internal citation omitted) .

^'A movant must set forth

facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court

to reverse its prior decision."
omitted) .

Id.

(internal citation

'''The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are

newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact."
Jacobs V. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc.,

626 F.Sd 1327, 1344 (11th

Cir. 2010)

(quoting In re Kelloqq, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th

Cir. 1999)

(internal punctuation omitted)).

'''A Rule 59(e)

motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument

or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the

entry of judgment."
of Wellington,

Id.

(quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. "Village

408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)

(alterations

omitted)).

The Court discerns no reason to grant Plaintiff's Motion.

He fails to present any newly-discovered evidence in support of
his claims, nor does he allege this Court's previously-entered
Order represents a manifest error of law or fact.

In fact.

Plaintiff offers no reason for the Court to reconsider i t s

previously-entered denial of in forma pauperis status on appeal.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for

Reconsideration.

The Court's Order dated March 28,

2017,

shall

remain the Order of the Court, and this case shall remain
closed.

II.

Plalxi'tiff' s Mctlons for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pavperls
For the reasons stated in this Court's March 28,

2017,

Order and in the Magistrate Judge's February 10, 2107, Report
and Recommendation, any appeal in this case would not be taken
in good faith.
24(a)(3).

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App.

P.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the

Court's prior denial, the Court discerns no good reason to

disturb its prior Order, as discussed in the preceding Section
of this Order.

Further,

if Plaintiff disagrees with this

Court's denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal, he should have filed the present Motions with the Court

of Appeals.

See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5)

(where the district

court certifies that an appeal is not taken in good faith,

petitioner/applicant may move the appellate court for leave to
proceed IFP).

Therefore, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions

for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein,
Plaintiff s

Motion for

Reconsideration and his Motions

to Appeal in Forma Pauperls,
SO ORDERED,

Dkt. Nos.

this

UNITED
SOUTHE

AO 72A

74,

75,

,

:SA/GODBEY WOOD,
STATES

for Leave

78.

day of

HON.

(Rev. 8/82)

the Court DENIES

JUDGE

DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT

OF

GEORGIA

2017,