GOODEN v. PHAMS

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION JIMMY GOODEN, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-301 (MTT) ) Doctor CECIL SISKA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER On May 22, 2025, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e). Doc. 18. Pro se Plaintiff Jimmy Gooden, Jr., has since moved for reconsideration. Doc. 22. The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. 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, “reconsideration 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, Gooden has not identified any intervening change in the law, newly discovered evidence, or manifest injustice that would justify reconsideration of the Court’s May 22, 2025 order (Doc. 18). Instead, Gooden simply rehashes some of his earlier arguments, which this Court has already rejected. Doc. 22. Because Gooden’s

disagreement with the Court's decision alone does not constitute a clear error, newly discovered evidence, or manifest injustice, there is no basis to reconsider the Court’s previous order, and Gooden’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 22) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2025. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT