United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
E. SELF, III, JUDGE
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].
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.
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
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
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) provides:
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
the district court denies the motion, it must state its
reasons in writing.
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