Opinion
No. 5:13-CV-368 (CAR)
04-28-2014
DESI LEE HYMAN JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, TELFAIR STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Desi Lee Hyman Jackson's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 13] of this Court's Order dismissing Defendant Georgia Department of Corrections (the "GDOC") and transferring this case to the Southern District of Georgia based on improper venue. Specifically, Plaintiff contends the Court erred in holding the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against the GDOC.
In his Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its ruling in Part B of the Order. In the referenced section, the Court dismissed both Telfair State Prison and the GDOC from this lawsuit. Plaintiff's Motion addresses the ruling only as it relates to the GDOC. Therefore, the Court limits its discussion accordingly.
Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy and should be employed sparingly. Motions for reconsideration should be granted only if: (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence has been discovered; or (3) reconsideration is needed to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Region 8 Forest Servs. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 805-06 (11th Cir. 1993).
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2005).
Here, Plaintiff's Motion fails to meet any of the standards discussed above. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, the GDOC cannot be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior liability for the acts of its employees. "[T]here is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983." Moreover, the GDOC cannot be held liable for enacting unconstitutional policies under the authority of Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York because Monell applies to municipalities and local governments, not state agencies like the GDOC.
Twilley v. Riley, 285 F. App'x 717, 719 (11th Cir. 2008) (italics added).
436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).
See Mayes v. Issac, 294 F. App'x 137, 139 (5th Cir. 2008) ("[The plaintiff's] reliance on [Monell] is misplaced because Monell concerned a suit against a municipality, and in no way suggests that state agencies are subject to suit in federal court.").
--------
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 13] is DENIED.
_________________
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ADP/bbp