Ashley v. Doe

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA WAYCROSS DIVISION

JUSTIN ASHLEY,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:22-cv-74

v.

JANE DOES 1–2, CONTREICA DAWSON, TERESKA HOLLIS, and MACK PAYNE,

Defendants.

O RDE R I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Modification of Court Order Plaintiff filed a Motion for Modification of the Court’s October 11, 2023 Order, doc. 35, which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. 40. A 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 County, 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)). The Court discerns no reason to grant Plaintiffs Motion and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff fails to present any newly discovered evidence in support of his expanded discovery requests, nor does he allege this Court’s previously entered Order represents a manifest error of law or fact. The Court’s October 11, 2023 Order remains the Order of the Court. Il. Plaintiff's Motion for a Hearing Plaintiff also filed a Motion for an Emergency Hearing. Doc. 41. Plaintiff states unnamed persons are conspiring to threaten him and to destroy his property as retaliation for Plaintiff accessing the court. Plaintiff asks the Court to conduct a hearing via video teleconference. Id. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiffs allegations are not connected to the allegations made in his Complaint. In addition, Plaintiffs allegations are vague and generalized and provide little to no basis for the granting of this Motion. SO ORDERED, this 29th day of November, 2023.

Bo BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA