Vickers v. Vickers et al

Filing 18

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
Wuvttosisi Btbtoion
JACQUELINE VICKERS,
Plaintiff,

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,
Defendants.

ORDER

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.

17.)

Motion

(Dkt.

No.

The Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as another request

for the Court to reconsider its previously-entered Orders^ and
DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.
28,

2016,

Court,

^

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

se [parties]
relief.'"

to interpret them xmder whatever statute would provide

Edwards v. Hastings, No.

2:14-CV-41,

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)).
A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

A motion for reconsideration, or a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) motion,

employed sparingly."

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,
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.3d 1327, 1344 (11th

Cir. 2010)

(quoting In re Kellogg, 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."

Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village

of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)
(alterations omitted)).

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

day of

l : SA

flTHD

' 2017.

F

JUDGE

STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)