BALLARD v. MATTHEWS

M.D. Georgia

BALLARD v. MATTHEWS

DecidedMay 17, 2022

Docket5:21-cv-00140

StatusUnknown

This text of BALLARD v. MATTHEWS (BALLARD v. MATTHEWS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BALLARD v. MATTHEWS, (M.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

RICO LAMAR BALLARD, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-140 (MTT) ) OFFICER MATTHEWS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff Rico Lamar Ballard has moved the Court to reconsider its order denying Ballard’s motion for a preliminary injunction concerning his legal mail. Doc. 69. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. Indeed, “[r]econsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It “is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates (1) that there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been discovered which was not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) that the court made a clear error of law.” Id. “In order to demonstrate clear error, the party moving for reconsideration must do more than simply restate his prior arguments, and any arguments which the party inadvertently failed to raise earlier are deemed waived.” McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997). Here, Ballard has raised no change in the law or pointed to newly discovered evidence. Rather, Ballard argues that the Court erred when it held that the legal mail issue is unrelated to the Eighth Amendment issues in this lawsuit. Ballard states that the two issues are related because he is using legal mail to litigate the Eighth

Amendment issues. But as the Court previously stated, these matters are clearly separate, and “[a] district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same character and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997); see also King v. Zamiara, 788 F.3d 207, 217-18 (6th Cir. 2015) (A court “may not grant injunctive relief to remedy an alleged [constitutional] violation” that “is not at issue in th[e] suit” before the court.”). Accordingly, Ballard’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 69) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of May, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

RICO LAMAR BALLARD, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-140 (MTT) ) OFFICER MATTHEWS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff Rico Lamar Ballard has moved the Court to reconsider its order denying Ballard’s motion for a preliminary injunction concerning his legal mail. Doc. 69. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. Indeed, “[r]econsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It “is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates (1) that there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been discovered which was not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) that the court made a clear error of law.” Id. “In order to demonstrate clear error, the party moving for reconsideration must do more than simply restate his prior arguments, and any arguments which the party inadvertently failed to raise earlier are deemed waived.” McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997). Here, Ballard has raised no change in the law or pointed to newly discovered evidence. Rather, Ballard argues that the Court erred when it held that the legal mail issue is unrelated to the Eighth Amendment issues in this lawsuit. Ballard states that the two issues are related because he is using legal mail to litigate the Eighth

Amendment issues. But as the Court previously stated, these matters are clearly separate, and “[a] district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same character and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997); see also King v. Zamiara, 788 F.3d 207, 217-18 (6th Cir. 2015) (A court “may not grant injunctive relief to remedy an alleged [constitutional] violation” that “is not at issue in th[e] suit” before the court.”). Accordingly, Ballard’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 69) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of May, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BALLARD v. MATTHEWS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-matthews-gamd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack