HUNTER v. RIVERBEND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Opinion

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

CURTIS HUNTER, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-491 (MTT) ) RIVERBEND CORRECTIONAL ) FACILITY, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Curtis Hunter, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order (Doc. 103) denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Doc. 104. 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). Hunter’s motion merely contends he does not need further authorization from the Court to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Doc. 104. But as the Court previously

explained, Hunter is required to make a showing that his appeal is taken in good faith. Doc. 101. Because Hunter has not satisfied the good faith requirement, the Court denied Hunter’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Doc. 103 at 3. Hunter’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 104) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 16th day of June, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT