Weaver v. CoreCivic

Opinion

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

WINDELL WEAVER,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:23-cv-61

v.

CORECIVIC, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDE R Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. 13. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its July 6, 2023 Order denying his motion to appoint counsel. Doc. 8. Plaintiff states he: is indigent and in prison; is not a lawyer; has limited access to the prison’s library; and could not litigate this case the way a lawyer could. Doc. 13 at 2–4. 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 Plaintiff's Motion. He fails to present any newly discovered evidence in support of his desire to have counsel appointed, nor does he allege this Court’s previous Order represents a manifest error of law or fact. As the Court advised Plaintiff, his case presents no exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel and his case is not complex enough to prevent him from presenting the essential merits of his position. Doc. 8 at 2. If the Court serves Plaintiff's Complaint, it will provide him instructions on how to litigate this case, including how to conduct discovery. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court’s July 6, 2023 Order remains the Order of the Court. SO ORDERED, this 20th day of July, 2023.

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