United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JAMON DEMETRIUS JACKSON has filed a “Motion to
Reconsider, Vacate, and Modify Order.” (Doc. 49).
Plaintiff does not specify whether this motion is brought
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Judgment was entered in this case on October 28, 2016. (Doc.
30). Rule 59 requires that a request for reconsideration be
filed within 28 days after the entry of judgment.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). “[A]n untimely filed motion to
alter or amend cannot invoke a trial court's
jurisdiction.” Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car,
Inc., 16 F.3d 1126, 1129 (11th Cir. 1994). But, a motion
for relief from judgment may be construed as a Rule 60(b)
motion. Damiano v. FDIC, 104 F.3d 328, 332 n.4 (11th
Cir. 1997) (citing Nisson v. Lundy, 975 F.2d 802,
806 (11th Cir. 1992)).
Civ. P. 60(b) allows a party to request relief from a final
judgment or order for: “(1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence
. . .; (3) fraud . . .; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied, release or discharged. . .; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Construing
Plaintiff's motion as one brought under Rule 60(b),
Plaintiff has not shown relief is warranted based on the
existence of any of these factors. The Motion is, therefore,
filed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on April 15, 2016.
(Doc. 1). He named as Defendants three wardens: Gregory
McLaughlin at Macon State Prison, Marty Allen at Valdosta
State Prison, and Thomas Frazier at Hancock State Prison.
(Doc. 1 at 1). He alleged a “professional
negligence” claim against each. (Doc. 1 at 5).
Specifically, he stated that in 2008 through 2009, he was
assaulted by two inmates at Hancock State Prison and had to
have surgery for multiple fractures in his face. (Doc. 1 at
5). Without providing details, Plaintiff stated that
“at some point” between 2011 and 2012 he was: (1)
denied proper housing, (2) suffered depression, (3) denied
mail, (4) had his due process rights violated, (5) illegally
arrested, (6) falsely imprisoned, (7) exposed to negligence,
and (8) exposed to hazardous conditions. (Doc. 1 at 5). In
August or September 2012, he was stabbed at Valdosta State
Prison by two inmates during a riot. (Doc. 1 at 5). In 2013,
he “went without a meal.” (Doc. 1 at 5). In 2014,
his cellmate attacked him with a tray and he suffered a
“brain trauma.” (Doc. 1 at 5). Finally, in
December 2014 he broke his leg and had to have surgery. (Doc.
1 at 5). Plaintiff claimed he was still in “harm's
way” and faced “imminent danger.” (Doc. 1
2, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 8). He
added Commissioner Homer Bryson as a Defendant. (Doc. 8 at
1). Plaintiff stated that he named Homer Bryson because
“[h]e is legally responsible for overall operation of
the Department and each institution under it's (sic)
jurisdiction. . . .” (Doc. 8 at 14). Plaintiff provided
some additional details regarding the 2008-2009 assault at
Hancock State Prison. (Doc. 8 at 5). Although it is unclear
how, Plaintiff stated that his due process rights were
violated at Hancock State Prison. (Doc. 8 at 5). Plaintiff
alleged that in 2012 or 2013, he “went on mental health
case load for depression.” (Doc. 8 at 5). He stated
that in September 2013, he was stabbed by other inmates at
Valdosta State Prison. (Doc. 8 at 5). His lung was punctured
and he had to be hospitalized. (Doc. 8 at 5). Apparently at
some point in 2014, while he was at Valdosta State Prison,
Officer White failed to “feed [his] cell on last meal
of day.” (Doc. 8 at 5). Plaintiff argued that the
stabbing and missed meal at Valdosta State Prison violated
his “right [to] due process and other amendment
violations” and “Warden Marty Allen violated
professional negligence by not resolving the matter.”
(Doc. 8 at 5). Plaintiff stated that in December 2014, he was
assaulted by another inmate and he had to have surgery on his
face. (Doc. 8 at 5). It appears Warden McLaughlin was the
warden at the time of the assault. (Doc. 8 at 6). Without
explanation, Plaintiff alleged throughout his amended
complaint that he “is still in imminent danger of
inmates [and] staff.” (Doc. 8 at 15).
attached several grievance forms to his amended complaint.
(Doc. 8-1). In one, dated October 21, 2015, Plaintiff
complained that he was not getting his mail. (Doc. 8-1 at 1).
In a second grievance dated October 21, 2015, he complained
that he was “being held on Tier II beyond twenty-four
months” and had been deprived of some unspecified
“personal property.” (Doc. 8-1 at 2). In the
grievances, he requested to be released from Tier II and/or
transferred to a different prison. (Doc. 8-1 at 2).
June 29, 2016 Order, the Court stated it presumed Plaintiff
was attempting to bring claims against each Defendant under
the Eighth Amendment based on a failure to protect him from
attack by other inmates and conditions of confinement. (Doc.
19 at 2). Also, it found Plaintiff may be attempting to bring
a due process claim based upon his confinement in long-term
administrative segregation. (Doc. 19 at 2). The Court told
Plaintiff his “allegations . . . [were] not sufficient
to link the named [D]efendants with the constitutional wrongs
of which he complains.” (Doc. 19 at 3). The Court,
therefore, allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
complaint. (Doc. 19 at 3). Plaintiff was told exactly what
information to include in his recast or amended complaint.
(Doc. 19 at 3-4). Specifically, the Court told Plaintiff to
include: what each named Defendant did (or did not do) to
violate his rights; when and where each action occurred; how
he was injured; who directly caused Plaintiff's injury
(if other than the named Defendants); how and when he learned
of the injury; when he learned of the Defendants'
involvement (or responsibility) for the injury; and what
relief he sought. (Doc. 19 at 3). Plaintiff was told that his
recast complaint would take the place of his previous
complaints and if he “fail[ed] to sufficiently link the
conduct or actions of a named [D]efendant to a claim, that
claim would be dismissed.” (Doc. 19 at 3-4).
with various motions and notices (Docs. 20, 21, 22, 25, 26,
27, 28), Plaintiff filed his recast complaint on July 15,
2016. (Doc. 24). But, Plaintiff completely failed to follow
the detailed instructions contained in the Court's June
29, 2016 Order.
October 29, 2016 Order, the Court found that Plaintiff was
complaining about events that occurred from 2008 to the
present. (Doc. 29 at 3). The Court determined that all claims
that accrued on or before April 2014 were time barred. (Doc.
29 at 4-5). The Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a
viable Eighth Amendment Claim against any of the three
wardens because “none of the allegations in
Plaintiff's complaint personally link the wardens to any
of the asserted constitutional violations; nor do his
allegations include any facts to suggest a causal connection
between any wardens' conduct or policies and
Plaintiff's injuries.” (Doc. 29 at 6).
the due process claim, Plaintiff stated in his recast
complaint that Homer Bryson was responsible for
“ALLOWING GDC PERSONEL (sic) TO HOLD INMATES LONGER
THAN S.O.P. REQUIREMENTS OF A MINIMUM OF NINE TO . . .
TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS MAXIMUM IN TIER PROGRAM.” (Doc. 24
at 1). Plaintiff stated he was confined in Tier II from
September 2013 to December 2015 and confined in Tier I from
December 2015 to January 2016. (Doc. 24 at 1). The Court
found that violation of an administrative Standard Operating
Procedure, standing alone, is not a basis for a
constitutional claim under § 1983. (Doc. 29 at 7). Also,
Plaintiff failed to explain how any of the named Defendants
had denied him notice or an opportunity to be heard before or
while he was confined in segregation. (Doc. 29 at 8). As the
Court stated, “there is nothing in Plaintiff's
Complaint to suggest when or if any [D]efendant was
personally aware of Plaintiff's prolonged . . .
confinement or that Plaintiff was denied any administrative
notification, hearing, or review that he was due.”
(Doc. 29 at 8).
Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to
state a claim. (Doc. 29 at 8). Judgment was entered in favor
of the Defendants on October 28, 2016. (Doc. 30).
filed a timely motion to alter or amend judgment on November
9, 2016. (Doc. 31). He simply stated, in a conclusory
fashion, that the Court should alter or amend its judgment.
(Doc. 31). A few days later, on November 14, 2016, he filed a
“Memorandum of Law.” (Doc. 32). The document is
incomprehensible and does not mention why the judgment in his
case should be altered or amended.
Order dated February 15, 2017, the Court denied
Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend. (Doc. 34). The
Court found that “Plaintiff's motion . . . does not
identify any valid basis for reconsideration; nor does his
motion persuade the Court that a reopening of this case is,
for any other reason, warranted.” (Doc. 34).
filed a second motion to alter or amend judgment on March 1,
2017. (Doc. 35). This motion, like Plaintiff's previous
Memorandum of Law” (Doc. 32), was nonsensical. In it,
Plaintiff spoke of a “three judge court” issuing
a “prisoner release order” in a “recasted
(sic) habeas action from this case, ” and requested
“narrowly drawn ...