Stevens v. United States et al
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)
tlKntteb States! Bts(trtct Court
:lfor tlje ^ontliem Bisitrtct of 4^eorsta
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:I4-cv-I78
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DR.
PETER LIBERO; PA B. AREMU; and MRS.
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,
the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motions.
The Court's Order dated March 28,
shall remain the Order
of the Court.
Plaintiff filed this cause of action in December 2014
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act,
28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and
2671, et seq.
(^^FTCA") , and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
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.
later set the deadline for the close of discovery as July 27,
Defendants filed a Motion to Compel and for Sanctions,
arguing that Plaintiff failed to participate in discovery.
Plaintiff then filed a
the Court's Order granting Defendants' Motion to Amend the
Scheduling Notice as to the expert disclosure deadlines.
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
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.
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.
that inmate was
transferred from the Federal Correctional Institution in Jesup,
Dkt. No. 38, p. 2.
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.
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
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
to follow this Court's directives
in the dismissal of this cause of action as a
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
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
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.
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
2017, dkt. no.
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.^
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.
maintains his appeal is being undertaken in good faith.
Plaintiff's first Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis was
deemed deficient because he failed to sign that pleading.
A motion for reconsideration, or a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) motion, is ^""an extraordinary remedy, to be
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Augusta-Richmond
Cty., No. CV 110-126, 2012 WL 1355575, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18,
(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."
'''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
(quoting In re Kelloqq, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th
(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."
(quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. "Village
408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)
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.
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
The Court's Order dated March 28,
remain the Order of the Court, and this case shall remain
Plalxi'tiff' s Mctlons for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pavperls
For the reasons stated in this Court's March 28,
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.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App.
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.
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
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
Therefore, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions
for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal.
For the reasons set forth herein,
Reconsideration and his Motions
to Appeal in Forma Pauperls,
the Court DENIES
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?