Opinion
6:10-cv-58.
June 6, 2011
ORDER
Plaintiff Warren Skillern again moves to reopen case 6:10-cv-58 and consolidate it with another closed case, 6:10-cv-45. See Doc. 15. This case was dismissed for failure to respond to the Magistrate Judge's July 8, 2010 order. See Docs. 6, 12. That order required Skillern to file trust fund account statements and a form consenting to the collection of filing fees from his prison account by August 9, 2010. See Doc. 3. Skillern filed a consent form and a letter, that did not to address the order, after this deadline. See Docs. 4, 5.
Skillern's motion critiques the Court's resolution of his previous motion. See Doc 15. Thus, the Court construes it as a motion for reconsideration. "Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly." Groover v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1256 (M.D. Ala. 2000). It is appropriate "only if the movant demonstrates that there has been an intervening change in the law, that new evidence has been discovered which was not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or that the court made a clear error of law." McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997).
Skillern's motion does not meet this standard. His motion to reconsider, see Doc. 15, is DENIED.