Ellison v. Unknown, No. 1:2022cv00143 - Document 27 (S.D. Ga. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER denying 24 Motion for Hearing; denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 26 Motion to Amend/Correct. This case remains closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/13/23. (wwp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ellison v. Unknown Doc. 27 Case 1:22-cv-00143-JRH-BKE Document 27 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION SHARON BUSH ELLISON, Plaintiff, V. CV 122-143 UNKNOWN, Defendant. ORDER This case is closed. (Docs. 22, 23.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff submitted several motions: a motion for evidentiary hearing (Doc. 24); a motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 25); and a motion to amend complaint (Doc. 26). For the following reasons. Plaintiff's motions are DENIED. I. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT "Reconsideration of a previous remedy, to be employed sparingly." l:15-cv-114, 2016 order is an extraordinary Armbuster v. Rosenbloom, No. WL 1441467, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 11, 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Spellman V. Haley, No. 97-T-640-N, 2004 WL 866837, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2002) ("[L]itigants should not use motions to reconsider as a knee-jerk reaction to an adverse ruling."). Because it "is not an appeal, . . . it is improper on a motion for reconsideration to Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-00143-JRH-BKE Document 27 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 6 ask the Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through — rightly or wrongly." Armbuster/ 2016 WL 1441467, at *1 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is well established that "additional facts and arguments that should have been raised in the first instance are not appropriate grounds for a motion for reconsideration." Gougler v. Sirius Prods., Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985) (cautioning against use of a motion for reconsideration to afford a litigant "two bites at the apple"); Rossi V. Troy State Univ., 330 F. Supp. 2d 1240, 1249-50 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (denying motion for reconsideration when plaintiff failed to submit evidence prior to entry of original order and failed to show good cause for the omission). Furthermore, "the moving party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002). And, ultimately, "the decision to grant a motion for reconsideration 'is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge.'" Townsend v. Gray, 505 F. App'x 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council V. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993)). A court may reconsider a final order or judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. Plaintiff's motion specifies it Case 1:22-cv-00143-JRH-BKE Document 27 Filed 09/13/23 Page 3 of 6 is being brought under Rule 60; thus, the Court will analyze her motion under this Rule. Rule 60(b) ^^allows for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Marsh v. Dep't of Children & Families, 259 F. App'x 201, 205 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Motions under [Rule 60(b)] are directed to the sound discretion of the district court." Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff's motion asks the Court to reconsider its February 10, 2023 Order reconsideration. (Doc. 22) but (Doc. 25, at 2.) provides no grounds Plaintiff's motion states: The Plaintiff makes this motion under the authorities of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60. Relief from a judgment or order grounds (3) fraud, intrinsic and or extrinsic, misrepresentation or misconduct by an opposing party. (b) Error of fact and conclusion contrary to law justifies relief in the above captioned case from the February 10, 2023 judgment and order. The Plaintiff has requested a[n] evidentiary hearing, in support of this motion for relief from the February 10, 2023 judgment and order, also for the purpose of presenting material evidence in the above captioned case, the Plaintiff also request[s] a court reporter be present at said hearing for the preparing of an official record in this case. for Case 1:22-cv-00143-JRH-BKE Document 27 Filed 09/13/23 Page 4 of 6 (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff has failed to set forth anything that would justify the Court amending its decision under Rule 60(b). Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, and her motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 25) is DENIED. II. MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING Plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 for "the purpose of presenting material evidence" to support her motion for relief from judgment. 24, at 1.) (Doc. The Court has discretion as to whether to hold an evidentiary hearing concerning Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment. Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining Kem Mfg. Corp. v. Wilder, 817 F.2d 1517, 1521 (11th Cir. 1987)) ("finding no abuse of discretion in district court's denial of evidentiary hearing in Rule 60(b) post-judgment action, where the district court did not grant relief as a matter of law in the first instance"). shall generally documents filed be as Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, "[m]otions determined upon prescribed the motion and herein." L.R. supporting 7.2, SDGa. Plaintiff's motion has not presented any grounds that would justify reconsideration; thus, the Court finds a hearing is not warranted or necessary. Plaintiff's motion hearing (Doc. 24) is therefore DENIED. requesting an evidentiary Case 1:22-cv-00143-JRH-BKE Document 27 Filed 09/13/23 Page 5 of 6 III. MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT COMPLAINT Lastly, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (Doc. 26, at 1.) Plaintiff argues she: filed her motion for relief from the November 10, 2022 Order and within the Order included the name of defendants that had been inadvertently left out of the caption of the November 8, 2022 complaint. A clerk processing a complaint that show[s] no defendant in the caption would be defined as a clerical mistake arising from oversight which is governed within the provision of Federal Rule 60. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant be added to the caption of the complaint within her November motion. (Id. at 2.) judgment The Court construes this as a motion for relief from under Rule 60(a) for corrections mistakes, oversights, and omissions. based on clerical The Court finds that there is no clerical mistake that would warrant relief under Rule 60(a). Plaintiff was directed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps to file an amended complaint naming a defendant by November 28, 2022, and Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on December 6, 2022. 6, at 2; Doc. 10.) Order, Plaintiff (Doc. Pursuant to the Court's February 10, 2023 failed to comply with the November 28, 2022 deadline, and her filings did not comply with the requirements of the November 10, 2022 Order. (Doc. 22, at 2.) As such, there is no clerical mistake, oversight, or omission that warrants relief under Rule 60(a), and Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend/correct her complaint (Doc. 26) is DENIED. Case 1:22-cv-00143-JRH-BKE Document 27 Filed 09/13/23 Page 6 of 6 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motions {Docs. 24, 25, 26) are DENIED. ORDER This case remains CLOSED. ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this day September, 2023. j. randMj hall, ^CHIEF JI UNITED JbTATES DISTRICT COURT UTHEI^r DISTRICT OF GEORGIA of
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
