PATTERSON v. USELTON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION ANTHONY TRIVAYL PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00258-TES YKK (USA) INC., Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Trivayl Patterson’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 14], in which he asks the Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims. [Doc. 14, p. 1].

At the outset, “motions for reconsideration are disfavored” and “relief under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Mercer v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-324 (CAR), 2012 WL 1414321, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 20, 2012) (citing Krstic v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1282 (S.D. Fla. 2010)); see also Daker v. Dozier, No. 5:17-cv-25 (CAR), 2017 WL 4797522, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 24, 2017); [Doc. 180 at pp. 2–3]. Furthermore, Rule 59(e) “cannot serve as a vehicle to relitigate old matters or present the case under a new legal theory . . . [or] give the moving party another ‘bite at the apple’ by permitting the arguing of issues and procedures that could and should have been raised prior to judgment.” Daker, 2017 WL 4797522, at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original).

The Court recognizes only three circumstances that warrant reconsideration of a prior order under Rule 59(e): “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Daker v. Humphrey, Civil Action No. 5:12-CV-461 (CAR), 2013 WL 1296501, at *2 n.1 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2013) (quoting Fla. College of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998)).

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion is especially improper because the Court did not dismiss his § 1981 claim. Indeed, that claim is still pending against Defendant YKK (USA) Inc. See generally [Doc. 5]. The Court did dismiss all claims against the individual-Defendants because Plaintiff failed to name them in his Recast Complaint [Doc. 4]. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that “the Court [would] look only to the contents of Plaintiff’s recast complaint when reviewing his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).” [Doc. 3, p. 9]. Specifically, as to his § 1981 claims, the Court explained: “Plaintiff should be mindful that he does not omit any specific allegations (or individuals) that pertain to his race- discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.” [Id.]. But, Plaintiff’s Recast Complaint lists only one defendant: YKK (USA) Inc. [Doc. 4, p. 2]. As a result, the Court dismissed all claims (including Plaintiff’s § 1981 claims) against the individual-Defendants. [Doc. 5, p. 1 n.1]. The Court warned Plaintiff of that potential result, but Plaintiff failed to ensure that he included any individual with respect to his § 1981 claims.

To clear up any remaining confusion, the following claims remain pending against YKK (USA) Inc.: Plaintiff’s § 1981 claim and his Title VII and ADA claims for events occurring between July 31, 2022, and January 27, 2023.1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 14].

SO ORDERED, this 16th day of September, 2024.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 To the extent Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration challenges any other portion of the Court’s Order [Doc. 5], it is DENIED because he does not offer any new evidence, point to any intervening changes in the law, or outline any clear error committed in the prior Order.