Daniels v. Upton et al
ORDER denying 44 Objection construed as a Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/27/2017. (thb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-94
MANAGER UPTON; WARDEN ROBERT
TOOLE; and STANLEY WILLIAMS,
Presently before the Court is third party Waseem Daker's Objections, (doc. 44), to the
Court's Order dated February 17, 2017, (doc. 43). The Court construes Plaintiffs Objections as
a Motion for Reconsideration ofthe Court's February 17,2017, Order.1
A motion for reconsideration, or a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, is "an
extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly." Smith ex rel. Smith v. Augusta-Richmond
Ctv.. 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." Id. (internal citation omitted). "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
1 Daker filed an Objection to the Court's final Order, and as such, Daker's instant Objection is most
properly cast as a Motion for Reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). "Courts generally 'must look
beyond the labels of [filings] by pro se [parties] to interpret them under whatever statute would provide
relief.'" 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. Ala.. 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)).
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, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (alterations omitted)).
The Court discerns no reason to grant Daker's Motion for Reconsideration. Here, Daker
does not present any newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact. Daker simply
reasserts the arguments from his Motion for Intervention.2 The Court already discussed at length
the law supporting its holding that Daker may not intervene in this case. (Doc. 43.) The Court
sees no error in that analysis, much less clear error warranting reconsideration.
For all of the above-stated reasons, as well as those included in the Court's February 17,
2017, Order, the Court DENIES Daker's Motion for Reconsideration, (doc. 43). The Court's
Order dated February 17, 2017, (doc. 43), remains the Order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this ^T^dav ofMarch, 2017.
HONORABLE J. RANDAE HALL
UNITED SJATES DISTRICT JUDGE
iRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
2 Daker also attempts to apply the United States Supreme Court's holding in Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199
(2007), to this Court's analysis of multiple prisoner-plaintiff in forma pauperis proceedings. (Doc. 44,
pp. 2-3.) Jones addressed the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
("PLRA") and is inapplicable to the Court'sdenial of Daker's Motion for Intervention.
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?