Daniels v. Upton et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 44 Objection construed as a Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/27/2017. (thb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION XAVIER DANIELS, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-94 MANAGER UPTON; WARDEN ROBERT TOOLE; and STANLEY WILLIAMS, Defendants. ORDER 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?