Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. McLaughlin

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division

June 22, 2018

DERRICK EDWARD ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
Warden GREGORY MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE

         Plaintiff Derrick Edward Robinson's Objection to Report and Recommendation [Doc. 12] and Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 16] are currently before this Court for review. Plaintiff, an inmate in the Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights complaint in this Court, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After conducting a preliminary review of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff did not set forth any factual allegations demonstrating a causal link between the only named defendant and the alleged constitutional deprivation. [Doc. 7]. Plaintiff did not file a timely objection to the recommendation of dismissal, and this Court subsequently adopted the recommendation. [Doc. 10].

         Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the Objection to Report and Recommendation, which this Court construes as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). See Green v. Drug Enf't Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1299 (11th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that the courts routinely treat post-judgment motions for reconsideration as Rule 59(e) motions). Newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact are the only grounds for the Court to grant a Rule 59 motion. Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). Such a motion is not appropriate for relitigating old matters or for raising arguments or presenting evidence that could have been raised before the Court entered judgment. Id.

         Here, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant McLaughlin is the warden of Macon State Prison, and thus, that he is responsible for the operations in the prison. [Doc. 12]. Plaintiff further contends that he set forth sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for relief. [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff does not identify any newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact committed when the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to alter or amend the judgment.

         With regard to Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, in the Court's best judgment, Plaintiff cannot maintain an appeal from the dismissal of his complaint in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915 govern applications to appeal in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,

(a)(1) [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefore, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.
(3) An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.

         Similarly, Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) provides:

         (1) [A] party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach an affidavit that:

(A) shows . . . the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.

         (2) If the district court denies the motion, it must state its reasons in writing.

         Thus, the Court must make two determinations when faced with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. First, it must determine whether the plaintiff is financially able to pay the filing fee required for an appeal. Here, Plaintiff has submitted a renewed affidavit for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and an updated certified copy of his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.