Brown v. Jackson et al

Filing 156

ORDER denying 150 Motion to Alter Judgment and 153 Motion; denying as moot 154 Motion. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 2/8/16. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

JOHNATHAN HEART BROWN,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:12-cv-99

v.

RONNIE SHUEMAKE; JOSEPH
HUTCHESON; and REGINALD FORD,
Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Johnathan Heart Brown's Motions to Alter or
Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Docs. 150, 153.) For the
reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motions to Alter or Amend. Moreover,
Plaintiffs Motion for Order to Serve Documents on Plaintiff, (doc. 154), is DENIED AS
MOOT.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who was formerly incarcerated at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia,

filed this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to contest certain conditions of his

confinement. (Docs. 1, 6.) Plaintiffs Complaint, as amended, was served on Defendants

Sergeant Ronnie Shuemake, Sergeant Joseph Hutcheson, and Lieutenant Reginald Ford
("Defendants") based on Plaintiffs assertions that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment

rights. (Doc. 19.) Specifically, Plaintiff contended that these Defendants failed to protect him
from attack by his cell mates.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs claims. (Doc. 134.) On

July 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants' Motion be granted and that

the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff s claims, including his claims for failure to protect, as well as
any potential claims for failure to intervene. (Doc. 144.) On August 26, 2015, the Court, after

conducting an independent and de novo review of the entire record, adopted the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, as supplemented therein, as the opinion of the Court and
overruled Plaintiffs Objections. (Doc. 148.)
On September 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Order

asking that the Court reverse its grant of summary judgment and reinstate his claims.
(Doc. 150.) On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Alter or Amend seeking
the same relief.

(Doc. 153.) Defendants have responded in opposition to both of Plaintiffs

Motions. (Docs. 151,155.)
DISCUSSION

"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). "This prohibition includes arguments that were previously available, but not pressed."
Id (internal omitted); see also Longcrier v. HL-A Co., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1250 (S.D.
Ala. 2009) (refusing to "indulge defendant's procedurally improper request for a 'do-over'").
A review of Plaintiffs Motions reveals that they contain nothing more than requests that

the Court re-examine the previous unfavorable ruling granting Defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment. Plaintiff does not assert any newly-discovered evidence, and he fails to show that the

Court made a manifest error of law or fact. He complains that the Court considered whether he

could pursue claims for failure to intervene and states that he never intended to pursue such
claims. (Doc. 150, p. 2.) However, because Plaintiff was proceeding pro se, the Court was
obligated to construe his Complaint liberally. Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir.
1990). Furthermore, the Court conducted an in-depth analysis of Plaintiffs failure to protect

claims in both the Report and Recommendation and in its final Order.

(Docs. 144, 148.)

Plaintiff raises no viable argument challenging those analyses.
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to show that he could not have previously presented the
contentions contained in his instant Motions.

In fact, Plaintiff made many of these same

contentions in his response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and in his

Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Court already rejected
these arguments and finds these arguments no more availing at this time.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motions to Alter or Amend the

Judgment. The Court's August 26, 2015, Order remains the Order of the Court, and this case
remains CLOSED.

Because this matter remains closed, the Court DENIES AS MOOT

Plaintiffs Motion for Order to Serve Documents on Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED, this

0

day of February, 2016.

HONORABLE J. RANDAL HALL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

&N DISTRICT OF GEORGIA