Vickers v. Vickers et al
ORDER denying 17 Motion for Court's Orders to be Ruled Null and Void. The Court's Orders dated September 28, 2016, and December 14, 2016, shall remain the Orders of the Court, and this case shall remain closed. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 1/20/2017. (csr)
3$n tllie ?litiite))i ^tateie( Btsitritt Court
:lfor tllie ^outliem ISiotnct ot 4^eotgia
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:16-cv-67
MELVIN GENE VICKERS; JANICE
MARIE VICKERS; MARY ANN VICKERS;
LISA FLOYD HOLMES; QUINTON GENE
VICKERS; WANDA SIMS; and DAVID
RASHAWN MURRAY VICKERS,
This matter comes before the Court on P l a i n t i f f s
for the Court's Orders to be Ruled Null and Void.
The Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as another request
for the Court to reconsider its previously-entered Orders^ and
DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.
The Court's Orders dated September
and December 14, 2016,
remain the Orders of this
and this case remains closed.
^^Courts generally ^must look beyond the labels of [filings] by pro
to interpret them xmder whatever statute would provide
Edwards v. Hastings, No.
2016 WL 686386, at *1
(S.D. Ga. Feb. 18, 2016) (quoting Lofton v. Williams, No. CV415-146,
2016 WL 126408, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2016) (first alteration in
original)) (citing Means v. Alabama, 209 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir.
2000) (concerning pro se inmates); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (^^Pleadings
must be construed so as to do justice."); Wilkerson v. Georgia, 618 F,
App'x 610, 611-12 (11th Cir. 2015)).
A motion for reconsideration, or a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) motion,
is ''an extraordinary remedy,
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.3d 1327, 1344 (11th
(quoting In re Kellogg, 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."
Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village
of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)
The Court discerns no reason to grant Plaintiff's Motion.
She fails to present any newly-discovered evidence in support of
her claims, nor does she allege this Court's previously-entered
Order represents a manifest error of law or fact.
As this Court
has already informed Plaintiff, to the extent she states any
viable cause of action against Defendants, her remedy lies with
the State of Georgia courts, not this Court.
(Dkt. No. 5, p. 5
n.l; Dkt. No. 16, p. 7.)
The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's
construed Motion for Reconsideration.
The Court's Orders dated
September 28, 2015, and December 14, 2016, shall remain the
Orders of the Court, and this case shall remain closed.
SO ORDERED, this
l : SA
STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?