Hampton v. Peeples et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 60 Motion for Copies. The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, and affirms the Magistrate Judge's March 2, 2016 Order. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 04/26/2016. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

NORMAN HAMPTON, III,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-104

v.

MATT PEEPLES,
Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's February 24,

2016 Order denying him leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 58.) The Court also has
before it Plaintiffs Motion for Copies (doc. 60) and his Objections to the Magistrate Judge's

March 2, 2016 Orderdenying his Motion for Appointment of Counsel (doc. 61). For the reasons
set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, GRANTS his

Motion for Copies, andOVERRULES his Objection to theMagistrate Judge's Order.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed this

cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contests certain conditions of his
confinement during his confinement at Rogers State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia. (Doc. 1.)

The Magistrate Judge conducted the requisite frivolity review of Plaintiffs Complaint onJune 8,

2015. (Doc. 19.) In the resulting Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded
that Plaintiff stated a viable claim for relief against Defendant Matt Peeples, a former

correctional officer at Rogers State Prison. (Id at p. 7.) However, the Magistrate Judge

recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs claims against all other Defendants.

(Id at

pp. 4-7.) The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, over the

Objections of Plaintiff. (Doc. 46.) On January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal

seeking to appeal the Court's adoption Order. (Doc. 47.) He also filed a Motion for Leave to
Appeal in Forma Pauperis, (doc. 48), and a Motion for Certificate of Appealability, (doc. 49).

On February 24, 2016, the Court denied those Motions. (Doc. 54.) In his current Motion for
Reconsideration, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider that Order. (Doc. 58.)

Plaintiff has also filed several pleadings requesting that the Court appoint him counsel in
this case. The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs first such request on December 23, 2014.

(Doc. 13.) The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs second request on June 18, 2015. (Doc. 24.)

Plaintifffiled an Objection to that Order, (doc. 26), which the undersigned overruled, (doc. 29).
Plaintiff then filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the denial of his request for counsel. (Doc. 30.)

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 38.)

On March 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs third request for appointment of

counsel. (Doc. 57, pp. 5-7.) In that Order, the Magistrate Judge also directed the United States
Marshal to make additional efforts to locate and serve Defendant Peeples with this lawsuit. (Id.

at pp. 3-5.) Plaintiff takes issue with that Order through his current Objection. (Doc. 61.)
Plaintiff has also moved for the Court to provide him copies of twenty-five pleadings in

this case. (Doc. 58.) Plaintiff agrees to pay fifty cents ($.50) per page for these copies and for
such funds to be deducted from his inmate trust account.

DISCUSSION

I.

Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration

Rule 60(b) provides that a Court may relieve a party from judgment, order, or proceeding

in a limited number of circumstances including: (1) mistake or neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; or, (5) the judgment has been satisfied. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(l)-(5). Additionally, the catchall provision of Rule 60(b) authorizes relief from a

judgment, order, or proceeding based on "any other reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(6). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is an "extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only
upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680
(11th Cir. 1984)(citation omitted). "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. Electolux Home Prods.. Inc., No. CV 103-050, 2010 WL 4025943, at *7

(S.D. Ga. Oct. 13, 2010). Motions for reconsideration "should not be used to relitigate issues
which have already been found lacking." Id.
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration fails on the merits, because it does not meet any of

the grounds for relief set forth in Rule 60. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the
undersigned's February 24, 2016, Order denying Plaintiffleave to appeal in forma pauperis and

denying his Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 54.) In rendering those decisions,
the Court laid out the pertinent legal standards for the relief Plaintiff requested and explained

why Plaintiff did not meet those standards. Id Plaintiffs current Motion for Reconsideration
entirely ignores the Court's analysis. Rather, Plaintiff contends that the undersigned and the

Magistrate Judge are "attempting to 'corruptly' diabolically dismantle and sabotage" Plaintiffs

lawsuit. (Doc. 58, p. 3.) Plaintiff has proffered no legitimate reason for this Court to disturb its

prior rulings. Consequently, the Court DENIES his Motion for Reconsideration.
II.

Plaintiffs Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order

A district judge must consider a party's objections to a magistrate judge's order on a

pretrial matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, the districtjudge
may modify or set aside that order, and reconsider the pretrial matter, only "where it has been
shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). "Clear error is a highly deferential standard of
review. As the Supreme Court has explained, a finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch.

Dist, 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "A

decision by the magistrate judge is contrary to law where it fails to follow or misapplies the

applicable law." Jackson v. Deen. No. CV 4I2-L39, 2013 WL 3963989, at *3 (S.D. Ga. July 25,
2013) (citation omitted).

In his Objection to the Magistrate Judge's March 2, 2016 Order, Plaintiff takes issue with
the denial of Plaintiff s Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 61, p. 2.) This Court

has consistently explained that Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel in this civil action
and that this case does not present extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of

counsel. (Docs. 13, 24, 29, 57.) Indeed, the undersigned analyzed whether Plaintiff needed

counsel at length when affirming the denial of Plaintiffs Second Motion for Appointment of
Counsel. (Doc. 29.) In his instant Objections, Plaintiff raises the same unavailing arguments
(albeit withmore fervor) that this Court already rejected.

Plaintiff also argues that the Magistrate Judge directed the State of Georgia's Attorney
General's Office to act on Plaintiffs behalf. (Doc. 61, pp. 1, 2-3.) Plaintiff misapprehends the

Magistrate Judge's Order.

The Magistrate Judge ordered the United States Marshal to take

additional efforts to locate Defendant Peeples in order to serve Peeples with Plaintiffs

Complaint. (Doc. 57, pp. 3-4.) To that end, the Magistrate Judge stated that the Marshal's
efforts would include contacting representatives of the Georgia Department of Corrections

and/or the Georgia Attorney General's Office to obtain Defendant Peeples' last known address.

(Id. at p. 4.) Consequently, the Court ordered those entities to provide the information requested

by the Marshal. Id Ordering the State of Georgia to provide information is quite different from

directing the State to advocate for Plaintiff or act on his behalf. Moreover, rather than prejudice
Plaintiff, these measures are designed to prevent his lawsuit from being dismissed. As the

Magistrate Judge pointed out, the ultimate responsibility for serving Defendant Peeples rests on
Plaintiffs shoulder, and if Defendant Peeples cannot be served, the Court will have no option but
to dismiss this case. (Doc. 57, p. 5.)

For all of these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections and AFFIRMS

the Magistrate Judge's Order.
III.

Plaintiffs Motion for Copies

Plaintiff requests copies of twenty-five pleadings in this case. (Doc. 58.) He agrees to

payfifty cents ($.50) per page for these copies and for such funds to be deducted from his inmate
trust account.

Id

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Copies.

As Plaintiff has

previously consented to the collection of fees in this case, (doc. 4), any costs associated with his
request for copies will be deducted from his prison trust account. The Clerk of Court is

AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to obtain prepayment of the fees for the requested copies
from Plaintiffs prison trust fund account and to then provide the requested pleadings to Plaintiff.

Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that should he request copies of pleadings or the docket

sheet in the future, the Court will presume that he is agreeing to pay fifty cents ($0.50) per page
for any copies that he is requesting. In other words, by requesting any copies, unless Plaintiff

otherwise states, Plaintiff agrees to pay fifty cents ($.50) per page for his requested copies. In
the future, Plaintiff does not need to file a motion for copies, as he may obtain copies of

pleadings, on the above described terms, by making such a request directly to the Clerk of Court.
As to any future requests, the Clerk of Court is hereby AUTHORIZED and DIRECTED to

provide Plaintiff with any documents he requests at the cost of fifty cents ($.50) per page and to
obtain prepayment of those fees from Plaintiffs prison trust account.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider the

Court's February 24, 2016 Order. That Order remains the Order of the Court. Additionally, the
Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections, and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's March 2,
2016 Order. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Copies in the manner set forth above.

SO ORDERED, this c^^dav ofApril, 2016.

HONOI

UNITED ST/ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1QUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA