IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 11-00520-KD-B

JOHNNY L. JOHNSON, et al, :

Defendants. :

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the plaintiff Michael Darnell Oliver’s “Motion to 

Warrant Consideration by the Court” which this Court construes as a motion for 

reconsideration.

1 (Doc. 25) Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the 

motion is DENIED.

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 Med. Ctr. of Ala., Inc. v. Riley, 284 

F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala. 2003). A motion for reconsideration “cannot be brought 

solely to relitigate issues already raised in an earlier motion.” Harris v. Corrections Corp. of 

America, 2011 WL 2672553, 1 (11th Cir. July 11, 2011) citing Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of 

Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). 

 1 Oliver proceeds pro se in this action. Therefore, the documents are given a liberal construction 

in the interest of justice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do 

justice.”); 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.”) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1323, 127 S.Ct. 1908 (2007).

Case 1:11-cv-00520-KD-B Document 27 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 2
In the motion for preliminary injunction, Oliver alleged that officers at Holman 

Correctional Facility had assaulted and threatened him and that an injunction should be entered 

to protect him from assault. The Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation that 

Oliver’s motion should be denied as moot because Oliver had been moved to Donaldson 

Correctional Facility. Oliver objected to the recommendation and argued that the injunction 

should be entered to protect him from possible assault in the future. He argued that moving him 

to a different facility did not render his motion for injunctive relief moot because he is routinely 

rotated among three different facilities. 

After review of the report and recommendation and the objection, the Court adopted the 

recommendation and the motion was denied as moot. Now, Oliver moves the Court to 

reconsider that decision asserting that the transfer to Donaldson is temporary, that he is still at 

risk of being assaulted there as well as when he is moved again, and that an injunction should be 

entered to protect him from assault.

Review of the motion to reconsider and the objection shows that Oliver raised the same 

argument: Moving him to a different facility does not render his motion for injunctive relief 

moot because he may be moved again to the facility where the assaults allegedly occurred or he 

may be assaulted at the facility to which he is moved. However, reconsideration is not 

available where the arguments and issues raised have already been heard and decided by the 

Court. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is due to be denied. 

DONE this the 7th day of August, 2012.

s / Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00520-KD-B Document 27 Filed 08/08/12 Page 2 of 2