Rosales v. Watts et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Reconsideration re 22 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations. The Court's 3/15/16, Order remains the Order of the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 6/17/2016. (ca)

3n the Uniteb btatto Atyarta Court
for the 6outbern Motritt of atorat'a
BrunMuttk atbiton
JAVIER ROSALES,
Plaintiff,
V.

HARRELL WATTS; RAYMOND E. HOLT;
SUZANNE R. HASTINGS; JOHN V.
FLOURNOY; KEN HARRIS, JR.; and SAM
KIRCHOFF,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-94

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
Dkt. No. 25. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's Motion.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Jesup, Georgia, believes and practices the
Santeria religion. Dkt. No. 1, 15-1. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants have deprived him of the ability to practice his
sincerely held religious beliefs. Id. Among other things,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have forced him to share
cigars with other Santerian inmates during their religious
ceremonies. Dkt. No. 15-1, pp. 11-13. He claims that, due to
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

sharing cigars, he has contracted an illness and has suffered
"throat pain; troubling [sic] swallowing; sinuses; Body Aches;
Headaches; Chronic fatigue as one of the practitioners was sick
with the flu." Id. at p.
Pursuant to

12.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

the Magistrate Judge

conducted the requisite frivolity review of Plaintiff's
Complaint. Dkt. No.

8.

The Magistrate Judge assessed

Plaintiff's claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388 (1971),

and the Religious

Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. Id. In
the resulting Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims for
monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities
and dismiss Plaintiff's Bivens claims for punitive and
compensatory damages. Id. at pp.

8, 13-15.

However, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff's
allegations arguably state colorable RFRA claims for injunctive
relief against Defendants in their official capacities and for
monetary damages and injunctive relief against Defendants in
their individual capacities. Id. at pp.

8-11.

Additionally,

the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff stated viable
Bivens claims for injunctive relief against Defendants in their
official capacities and for nominal damages and injunctive

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

2

relief against Defendants in their individual capacities. Id.
at pp. 11-15.
Plaintiff subsequently filed Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation and amended his Complaint.
Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. On March 15, 2016, after an independent and

de novo review of the entire case, including the Amended
Complaint, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. Dkt. No. 22. Among other things, the Court
discussed at length whether Plaintiff stated a plausible claim
for violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at pp. 16-20. That
discussion included analysis of Plaintiff's amended allegations
regarding having to share cigars with other inmates. Id.
Ultimately, the Court determined that Plaintiff had not stated
an Eighth Amendment claim. Id.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff challenges the
Court's dismissal of his Eighth Amendment claims. Dkt. No. 25.
Plaintiff argues that the Court overlooked the risks to his
health and that the Court took the position of being an
"advocate" for Defendants. Id. He also states that it is not
clear if his Eighth Amendment claims were dismissed with or
without prejudice. Id. at p. 3.

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

3

DISCUSSION

Rule 60(b) provides that a Court may relieve a party from a
judgment or order in a limited number of circumstances,
including: (1) mistake or neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence; and (3) fraud. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (1) -(5).
Additionally, the catchall provision of Rule 60(b) authorizes
relief from a judgment or an order based on "any other reason
that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (6) . Rule
60(b) (6) is an "extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only
upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." Griffin v. SwimTech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (citation
omitted).
The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is
committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Fla.
Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't of
Health and Rehab. Servs., 225 F. 3d 1208, 1216 (11th Cir. 2000).
Motions for reconsideration are to be filed only when
"absolutely necessary" where there is: (1) newly discovered
evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in
controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law
or fact. Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258-59 (N.D.
Ga. 2003). "An error is not 'clear and obvious' if the legal
issues are 'at least arguable.'" United States v. Battle, 272
F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (quoting Am. Home
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

4

Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assoc., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237,
1239 (11th Cir. 1985))
"In considering a motion for reconsideration, a court must
balance the need for finality and judicial economy against the
need to render just decisions." Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux
Home Prods., Inc., No. 1:03-cv-50, 2010 WL 4025943, at *7 (S.D.
Ga. Oct. 13, 2010) . Notions for reconsideration "should not be
used to relitigate issues which have already been found
lacking." Id. Motions for reconsideration are not appropriate
to present the Court with arguments already heard and dismissed,
to repackage familiar arguments, or to show the Court how it
"could have done it better" the first time. Pres. Endangered
Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of
Eng'rs., 916 F. Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995),

aff'd 97 F.3d

1242 (11th Cir. 1996)
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration fails on the merits,
because it does not meet any of the grounds for relief set forth
above. Plaintiff does not address the Court's lengthy
discussion of his Eighth Amendment claims or the numerous
authorities cited therein. He does not cite any new evidence or
change in legal authorities. Further, he does not establish
that the Court made a clear error in law or fact. Rather, he
rehashes allegations which this Court has already assessed.

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

5

As to Plaintiff's question of whether the dismissal of his
Eighth Amendment claims was with or without prejudice, "[Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure] 41(b) provides that, for any dismissal

other than one for failure to join a party under Rule 19,
improper venue, or lack of jurisdiction, the dismissal will
operate as an adjudication on the merits." Marcus v. Postmaster
Gen., U.S. Postal Serv. Se. Area, 161 F. App'x 820, 822 (11th
Cir. 2011) . Here, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment claims on the merits for his failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. No. 22, pp. 16-20. That
dismissal was with prejudice.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court's March 15,
2016, Order remains the Order of the Cour
SO ORDERED,

this___ day of

ISA GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

6

2016.