United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Kopperud's ("Plaintiff" or "Kopperud") "Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Dismissal of Defendant Damien Butler"  ("Motion").
In the "Background" section of its December 18, 2013, Order,  ("Summary Judgment Order") the Court set forth this case's extensive factual background, and set forth the basis for granting in part Dexter Mabry's ("Mabry") and Damien Butler's ("Butler, " together with Mabry, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment . (Summary Judgment Order at 2-18, 31-48). The background section and analysis of Plaintiff's claims against Butler is incorporated here by reference.
On October 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants in their individual capacities. Defendants are deputies in the Fulton County, Georgia, Sheriff's Office. On November 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting the following claims: (i) excessive use of force, brought under Section 1983 (asserted against Butler) (Count I); (ii) false arrest, brought under Section 1983 (asserted against Mabry and Butler) (Count II); (iii) assault and battery, brought under state law (against Mabry and Butler) (Count III); (iv) false imprisonment, brought under state law (against Mabry) (Count IV); (v) failure to intervene, brought under Section 1983 (against Mabry) (Count V); (vi) punitive damages (against Mabry and Butler) (Count VI); and (vii) attorneys' fees, under Section 1988 (against Mabry and Butler) (Count VII). These claims were based on events involving Plaintiff's arrest on October 9, 2010.
On August 1, 2013, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting qualified immunity from Plaintiff's § 1983 claims and official immunity, under Georgia law, from Plaintiff's state-law claims.
On December 18, 2013, the Court entered its Summary Judgment Order. The Court granted Defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part. With respect to Butler, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's excessive use of force, false arrest, and assault and battery claims, and dismissed Butler from the action.
On January 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Motion,  seeking reconsideration of the Court's decision to dismiss the claims against Butler on the grounds that the Court made a clear error of fact in its Summary Judgment Order.
A. Legal Standard
The Court does not reconsider its orders as a matter of routine practice, and motions for reconsideration must be filed "within twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the order or judgment." LR 7.2 E., NDGa. A motion for reconsideration should not be used to present the Court with arguments already heard and dismissed, or to offer new legal theories or evidence that could have been presented in the previously-filed motion. See Arthur v. King , 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007); O'Neal v. Kennamer , 958 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir. 1992); Bryan v. Murphy , 246 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1259 (N.D.Ga. 2003); see also Jones v. S. Pan Servs. , 450 F.Appx. 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2012); Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , 916 F.Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D.Ga. 1995)("A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for the moving party and their counsel to instruct the court on how the court could have done it better' the first time.").
A district court has the discretion to revise or reconsider interlocutory orders at any time before final judgment has been entered. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); e.g., Bryant v. Jones , 696 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1320 (N.D.Ga. 2010). "A motion for reconsideration generally is appropriate where there is: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact." Id . (reconsidering the denial of Court's order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment brought on qualified immunity grounds); see also, e.g., Jersawitz v. People TV , 71 F.Supp.2d 1330, 1344 (N.D.Ga.1999). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the Court. See Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock , 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff's Motion does not rely on newly discovered evidence or an intervening development or change in controlling law. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its prior ruling based ...