United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff s post-judgment
Motion for Reconsideration and two Motions to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis on Appeal. Dkt. Nos. 74, 75, 78. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's Motions. The Court's Order dated March
28, 2017, shall remain the Order of the Court.
filed this cause of action in December 2014 pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and
2671, et seq. ("FTCA"), and Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), and alleged Defendants' actions
caused him to lose vision in his left eye. Dkt. No. 1.
Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on
February 8, 2016, dkt. no. 21, and the Clerk of Court entered
a Scheduling Notice on this same date advising the parties
that discovery was to close on June 27, 2016, dkt. no. 22.
The Court later set the deadline for the close of discovery
as July 27, 2016. Dkt. No. 30.
filed a Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, arguing that
Plaintiff failed to participate in discovery. Dkt. No. 32.
Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's Order granting Defendants' Motion to Amend
the Scheduling Notice as to the expert disclosure deadlines.
Dkt. No. 33. The Court granted both portions of
Defendants' Motion and deferred ruling on Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration.
Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff sought reconsideration
of the Court's Order regarding the expert disclosure
deadlines. Plaintiff maintained that he should have been
afforded the opportunity to obtain counsel and an expert to
assist him in this case. Id. at p. 2. Relatedly, in
his Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff once again sought
additional time to obtain counsel to assist him in this case.
Plaintiff maintained he has a limited education, and the only
reason he was able to commence this cause of action is
because he had the assistance of a fellow inmate. However,
that inmate was transferred from the Federal Correctional
Institution in Jesup, Georgia, ("FCI Jesup"). Dkt.
No. 38, p. 2. Plaintiff stated his request was made in good
faith and was not designed or intended to delay or prolong
the litigation. Id. at p. 5. Additionally, Plaintiff
asserted he would diligently abide by any and all future
instructions from the Court. Id.
in its August 12, 2016, Order, the Court found
Plaintiff's course of conduct in this case showed a
disregard for this Court's directives and belied
Plaintiff's contentions. Dkt. No. 35. In granting
Defendants' Motion to Compel, the Court specifically
found that Plaintiff did not answer Defendants' discovery
requests, as previously instructed, nor did he respond to
Defendants' Motion. Dkt. No. 35, p. 4 (quoting Dkt. No.
11, p. 15). The Court again instructed Plaintiff to respond
to Defendants' discovery requests within ten (10) days of
its August 12, 2016, Order. Id. Plaintiff was
forewarned that his failure to follow this Court's
directives would result in the dismissal of this cause of
action as a sanction. Id. Unfortunately, Plaintiff
failed to heed this warning. On September 16, 2016, the Court
denied Plaintiff's Motions for Extension of Time and once
again noted his disregard for this Court's Orders. Dkt.
February 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended, inter
alia, that the Court grant Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint for Lack of Prosecution and
Failure to Comply with Court Orders and deny Plaintiff leave
to appeal in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 61. The Court
adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
as the opinion of the Court, over Plaintiff's Objections,
by Order dated March 28, 2017. Dkt. No. 66. The Court entered
a judgment of dismissal on March 29, 2017. Dkt. No. 67.
Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment,
dkt. no. 68, which the Court denied on April 25, 2017, dkt.
has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the portion of
the Court's Order denying him in forma pauperis
status on appeal. Dkt. No. 74. In addition, Plaintiff has
filed two Motions for Leave to Appeal in Forma
Pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 75, 78.
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
requests this Court reconsider its previous Order denying him
in forma pauperis status on appeal. Plaintiff
maintains his appeal is being undertaken in good faith. Dkt.
No. 74, p. 1.
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 Cty., 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
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)).
Court discerns no reason to grant Plaintiff's Motion. He
fails to present any newly-discovered evidence in support of
his claims, nor does he allege this Court's
previously-entered Order represents a manifest error of law
or fact. In fact, Plaintiff offers no reason for the Court to
reconsider its previously-entered denial of in forma
pauperis status on appeal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's Motion for ...