Franklin v. Bryan et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion filed by Jeremy O. Franklin. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Ray on 10/24/2024. (gmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
JEREMY O. FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY CHIEF
ROB BRYAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV424-186

ORDER
The undersigned previously denied Plaintiff’s Motion asking the
Court to authorize the nunc pro tunc filing of his Complaint to July 24,
2024, the date counsel attempted to file it via the Court’s CM/ECF
system. See doc. 7. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of that Order.
Doc. 8. For the reasons explained below, that Motion is DENIED. Doc.
8.
The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is at the Court’s
discretion.

See Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v.

Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993). 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.”
Murray v. ILG Techs., LLC, 2019 WL 498849, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 8, 2019)
(citing Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258-59 (N.D. Ga. 2003)).
In this context, “new evidence” is not merely evidence that was not
previously presented. See, e.g., Mays v. United States Postal Serv., 122
F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that “where a party attempts to
introduce previously unsubmitted evidence on a motion to reconsider, the
court should not grant the motion absent some showing that the evidence
was not available during the pendency of the motion.”). 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.” Murray, 2019 WL 498849, at *1 (citing 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 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996)).
Plaintiff’s counsel disputes the Court’s prior determination that the
Complaint, which counsel intended to file on July 24, 2024, was not filed
with the Clerk as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 or this
Court’s Local Rules until August 19, 2024. See doc. 7 at 2-3; see also doc.
2

8.

He contends that he did file the Complaint, but a “malfunction

intervened that prevented the delivery of the Complaint to the proper
place within the CM/ECF system.” Doc. 8 at 3. Because he has “no
control over the inner workings of the CM/ECF system,” he argues the
Clerk was in possession of the theoretically filed pleading. Id. at 7. To
vindicate his position, he points to what he believes are other “technical
errors with the CM/ECF system.” Id.
These other alleged “technical errors” with the Court’s e-filing
system occurred in the case Lee v. Necco, LLC, 2:24-cv-100 (S.D. Ga. Aug.
21, 2024). See doc. 8 at 4. There, after Defendant removed the case to
this Court’s Brunswick’s Division, the Clerk issued a Removal Notice to
All Counsel of Record, directing Plaintiff’s counsel to enter an appearance
within ten days. See 2:24-cv-100, doc. 3 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2024). After
Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear, the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause.

See 2:24-cv-100, doc. 6 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 9, 2024).

The Clerk

emailed a copy to counsel, who had not yet appeared and was therefore
not entered as counsel of record on the docket. See doc. 8-2. Counsel
believes that his not receiving Notices of Electronic Filing (“NEFs”) of
documents filed in CM/ECF before his appearance in the case must
3

“demonstrate the fallibility of the CM/ECF system.” Doc. 8 at 5. Counsel
is mistaken. He did not receive them because he did not comply with the
Clerk’s direction to enter his appearance in the case.

There is no

indication that the CM/ECF’s failure to send NEFs to an attorney who
had not appeared is an “error” at all, technical or otherwise. Cf., S.D. Ga.
LR Civ. 83.6(a) (“The filing of any pleadings shall . . . constitute an
appearance by the person who signs such pleading.”). Counsel’s nonreceipt of NEFs in a different case, due to his own neglect, does not alter
the Court’s analysis of Plaintiff’s prior Motion in this case.
Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistaken belief that the Court’s CM/ECF
system malfunctioned, such that his Complaint was “filed” but did not
arrive to the Clerk’s office, is insufficient to support reconsideration of
the Court’s prior Order. The Motion for Reconsideration is, therefore,
DENIED. Doc. 8. The docket correctly reflects that the Complaint was
filed on August 19, 2024.
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of October, 2024.
_______________________________
___________________________
CHRISTOPHER
RIST
TOPHE
HER L. RAY
UNITED
ITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4