IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLIE C. DANZY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0836-KD-B

)

STATE OF ALABAMA, DEPARTMENT )

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, )

)

Defendants )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on plaintiff Charlie C. Danzy’s motion for reconsideration

of the order adopting the report and recommendation and judgment closing this action (docs. 21,

22,23). Upon consideration and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion to reconsider is

DENIED. 

The decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is left to the discretion of the trial

court. Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc). “In the

interest of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration of an order is an

extraordinary remedy and is employed sparingly.” Gougler v. Sirius Products, Inc., 370 F.

Supp.2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citation omitted). Generally, “[a] motion to reconsider is

only available when a party presents the court with evidence of an intervening change in

controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest

injustice.” Summit Medical Center of Alabama, Inc. v. Riley, 284 F. Supp.2d 1350, 1355 (M.D.

Ala. 2003). Also, “[m]otions for reconsideration should not be used to raise legal arguments

which could and should have been made before the judgement was issued.” Sanderlin v.

Seminole Tribe of Florida, 243 F.3d 1282, 1292 (11th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 

Case 1:09-cv-00836-KD-B Document 24 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 3
2

Review of the motion to reconsider indicates that Danzy does not raise any new argument

based on an intervening change in controlling law nor does he present any new evidence. Giving

Danzy’s motion to reconsider the liberal construction due to pro se motions, Boxer X v. Harris,

437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir.2006) (“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than

pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed”) (quotations omitted),

cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1323, 127 S.Ct. 1908 (2007), the Court construes the motion to reconsider

as based upon the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. 

In that regard, the Court has reviewed the motion to reconsider, the order adopting the

report and recommendation, and the report and recommendation and finds that there is no clear

error or manifest injustice resulting from its decision. Danzy argues that because the court

converted the State’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and then, granted the

State of Alabama’s motion for summary judgment, Magistrate Judge Bivins and the undersigned

conspired to protect the State from Danzy’s claims. This argument is without merit. The Court

has discretion to construe the pleadings on its docket and convert a motion to dismiss to a motion

for summary judgment. See Christy v. Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Fla., 288 Fed.Appx. 658,

664 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Danzy also argues that the Court erred by finding that the State had not waived immunity

under the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Danzy cites to Code of Alabama §

6-5-1(c) (1975). However, that section applies to actions commenced by the State and not to

actions commenced against the State, such as in the action now before the Court. 

Danzy also argues that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply because the parties

in this action are Danzy and the State but the parties in the state court action were “Danzy v.

Case 1:09-cv-00836-KD-B Document 24 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 3
3

Danzy”. However, despite Danzy’s analysis of the elements of the doctrine, Magistrate Judge

Bivins also explained that the action now before the Court - Danzy v. State of Alabama - is

“inextricably intertwined with the state court judgments” and that an action in federal court is

“inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment ‘if the federal claim succeeds only to the

extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it’” (doc. 19, p. 5-6). 

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2010.

s / Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00836-KD-B Document 24 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3